Zimbabwe: UK Policy

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships' House and at the request of my noble friend Lord Blaker who is indisposed, I beg leave to put the Question in his name on the Order Paper.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what recent changes there have been in their policy towards Zimbabwe.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, our policy towards Zimbabwe has not changed. We want a democratically accountable government who respect human rights and the rule of law. We are working with our EU and Commonwealth partners and other countries in southern Africa to bring that about, while providing humanitarian assistance to the people of Zimbabwe. Last week, the United Kingdom contributed a further £5 million to the United Nations World Food Programme's emergency appeal for food aid for Zimbabwe. That brings to £62 million our total of humanitarian assistance to that country since September 2001.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. What protests have Her Majesty's Government sought to make, and in what form, at the most recent arrest of the directors of the Daily News as part of a programme of suppressing free speech in Zimbabwe? What protests are to be made at the evidence from the Human Rights Watch report that food is being used for political ends and that the Grain Marketing Board is rotten through and through, distorting the distribution of food? Finally, is there any truth in the report that Mr Mugabe has been taken ill and flown to South Africa and that Mr Mnangagwa has taken over or is about to take over in his place?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have made it clear: the Foreign Secretary has issued two statements condemning the Government of Zimbabwe's attack on the free and independent media. As your Lordships may know, after a six-week ban, the administrative court ruled in favour of Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe on 24th October. The following day, the Daily News was published with the headline, "We Are Back". Sadly, on 26th October, 18 Daily News employees were arrested. Yes, the Foreign Secretary has made a protest.
	In relation to the diversion of food, alluded to by the noble Lord, the World Food Programme has raised that issue. On the question about the health of the President, Robert Mugabe, a foreign affairs spokesperson—Mr Ronnie Mamoepa—has denied the report. He has emphasised that the Government and High Commission of Zimbabwe are in a better position than the media to know whether Mr Mugabe is in the country. I understand that the Zimbabwean Government therefore deny the reports in circulation.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, are there not grounds for thinking that time is at last running out for Mugabe, even though reports of his ill health, unfortunately, are exaggerated? Does the noble Baroness think that the United Nations should be developing contingency plans for a massive increase in aid should there be a transitional government which we could support and which would lead to free and fair elections?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that we have hoped for a considerable period that time is running out for Mr Mugabe. I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that I hope time is running out because the people of Zimbabwe want to see the back of a truly terrible leader, but not necessarily through any illness that Mr Mugabe is suffering. However, perhaps my feelings on that point are not quite as nice as that.
	As regards the other point raised by the noble Lord, we have tried to obtain consensus in the United Nations around the issue. As the noble Lord will concede, we have found it very difficult to do so. When we last tried, five members of the Security Council voted for a no-action Motion. If we thought that we could obtain consensus, we would again be pressing on that issue. It is to be hoped that the latest developments—certainly the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in his noble friend's Question about the clamp-down on the media—will concentrate minds.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does she accept that such is the collapse of the structures of good order in Zimbabwe that we are into a moment of the naked abuse of power? The effect of that is corrupting on all institutions and, if I dare say so, even on some of the leadership of the Churches in Zimbabwe at present. Given the Prime Minister's priority for Africa in this Parliament, what plans have the Government and our international partners in place for the situation when the present regime in Zimbabwe collapses and we face the possibility of a new order?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, throughout the whole unhappy episode, we have tried to keep our lines open to the Opposition in Zimbabwe. But the noble Lord will be aware of the difficulties suffered by Mr Tsvangirai and the trial. We have also kept our lines open to trade unions in Zimbabwe. Through humanitarian assistance, we have made it clear that our quarrel is, in no sense, with the people of Zimbabwe, but with the appalling way in which they are being led.
	In the longer term, we hope to see the back of this regime. Her Majesty's Government have—not just bilaterally, but through the multi-lateral means open to them through the EU and the Commonwealth—kept our lines open to the Opposition, to the trade unions and to the very many people, including the Churches, who will be able to do something to step into the breach when we see the back of the regime.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, how would the noble Baroness assess the effectiveness of the policies which Her Majesty's Government have been pursuing in terms of influencing the behaviour of the ZANU-PF regime?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, our policy has been consistent and effective. If the sole criterion by which the noble Viscount wishes to judge the policy of Her Majesty's Government is the effect it has had on Mr Mugabe's regime, then no doubt he will think that it has not been effective. But I am bound to say to him that one of the problems is that nothing seems to affect Mr Mugabe's regime. It is not affected by the imposition of travel sanctions on which we think that we have established a strong position, along with our colleagues in the European Union. We believe that our sanctions are biting. On 19th October, the Standard newspaper pointed out that, for example, Zimbabwe's entire fleet of Hawk fighter jets has been grounded because Britain had frozen the parts for those aeroplanes. Further, we have taken action through the Commonwealth Heads of Government.
	The noble Viscount should not be led into thinking that what we have done has not been effective. It has; and it is hoped that, through patience and the constant application of those sanctions, we shall see the back of this regime.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, given the closure of the Daily News, which we all regret, can the Minister confirm, without giving too much away, that Her Majesty's Government are doing something to provide alternative sources of news for the Zimbabwean people? Surely this repression is one of the major weapons being used by Mr Mugabe.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, given the High Court ruling in Zimbabwe, I would suggest to noble Lords that the closure of the Daily News is now a matter which is illegal. The administration has now moved against its own courts and I understand that legal advice is being taken not only by those arrested, but also by the directors, who went voluntarily to the police on this issue. Of course we must look at other ways through which to get a message into the media, but I stress to noble Lords that we believe that this is now a matter for the Zimbabwean courts to address in light of the harassment that has been illegally conducted by the government.

Illegal Meat Imports

Lord Rotherwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many seizures of illegal meat imports Customs and Excise has made since the action plan, and how many have resulted in a conviction.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, full-year figures are published by Defra in the Annual Review of Controls on Imports of Animal Products in July of each year. The figures published by Defra for total seizures of imported goods by all agencies in 2001–02 were 2,053, and in 2002–03, 7,819. As regards convictions, and further to my Written Answer of 24th September (Official Report, 6/10/03; col. WA 34), Customs and Excise has not recorded any convictions for illegal meat smuggling since 11th April.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that, on 19th June this year, some 33 tons of illegal meat were seized in the Tower Hamlets area? Bearing in mind that, in answer to a Written Question I tabled in March of this year, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stated that:
	"We have made clear that prosecutions are an important aspect of deterrence which we would like to see used where there is clear evidence of a serious breach in the rules".—[Official Report, 4/3/03; WA 106.],
	why have the Government no stomach for prosecuting the illegal importation of meat?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Whitty. In order to prosecute, one must demonstrate a proven intention to break the law and the person to be prosecuted must be available to the United Kingdom courts. A balance has to be struck: are we to use the time of Customs and Excise officers in prosecutions or will we deploy it on greater detection? From the point of view of public health, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, would agree that it is better to use the resources available on detection.

Earl Peel: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether Customs and Excise officers are still relying on sniffer dogs to detect illegal meat imports? Further, given the potential for yet another outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which caused such great hardship in the countryside—never mind the enormous cost to the Government—can the Minister say whether a feasibility study into the potential use of modern surveillance equipment has been undertaken? If not, why not? If it has been undertaken, can the Minister tell the House the results of that study?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if, in using the word "rely", the noble Earl, Lord Peel, suggests that we rely entirely on sniffer dogs, then the answer is no. Of course we do use sniffer dogs and, indeed, more sniffer dogs are in training. However, the training period is long and there is strong demand for sniffer dogs also for use in, for example, drug detection. Sniffer dogs are not the only method of detection used. We have four new mobile teams involved in the detection of illegal meat smuggling and we rely very heavily on intelligence. Further, we have run publicity campaigns at airports of entry.
	In response to the second question put to me about a study made into electronic techniques, I shall have to write to the noble Earl on that.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on answering a question which his colleague, John Healey, could not respond to in the House of Commons on 10th September. The noble Lord has also provided us with some statistics. Those statistics were produced in the July report and a long time has elapsed since then. The original Question concerned enforcement methods. Can the noble Lord tell us how many enforcement officers are being used? Further, if people are importing illegal meat, what are the penalties for so doing and why have there been no arrests?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already answered the question of arrests in my response to the supplementary question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. As regards the number of people involved in detection, I have referred to the four new mobile teams. Of course, Customs and Excise officers at airports are not engaged only on the detection of illegal meat smuggling. They are involved in a whole range of activities and therefore it would not be possible to give a figure for the number of "full-time equivalents"—I think that that is the correct term—engaged in this work.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, as regards statistics, how many recorded cases have there been in each of the last three years of problems caused to public health by the illegal importation of meat or other animal products?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that information is not recorded centrally. Data on food-borne illnesses, at least to human beings, would be recorded by individual National Health Service trusts. No cases have been notified to Customs and Excise.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, it is very good news that the number of seizures has increased and is to the credit of Customs and Excise. How many of the seizures in the past year were of concealed commercial imports and how many were of meat carried by individuals trying to bring it illegally into the country?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that there are such figures because a hard and fast line cannot be drawn. I do not believe that you can distinguish between someone bringing in meat for their own consumption, or for the consumption of friends and members of their community, and someone bringing in meat, for example, for use in a restaurant. It is an unknowable statistic.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, is not the Minister concerned that it is total chaos out there? The figures are dreadful, rising from 2,053 seizures in 2001 to 7,819 seizures in 2002–03. His answer that there have been no convictions will be of no consolation to anyone. I hope that he will at least acknowledge that. The Minister said that it is quite difficult to obtain convictions in this country. What action are the Government taking in co-operation with their colleagues in the countries overseas from which these illegal meats are being brought in? They must surely follow the trail backwards. Is any equivalent work being carried out in those countries overseas?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not agree that it is total chaos out there, to use the noble Baroness's words. The Government are providing £25 million for the years 2003–05 to tackle illegal imports of meat, other animal products, plants, plant products and foodstuffs. Customs and Excise has received its fair share of that and I have described the methods it is using. Above all, it is a matter of intelligence, and that is the area in which Customs and Excise is collaborating with Defra to ensure that the kind of people who are most likely to import illegal meat from certain parts of the world—the noble Baroness would not wish me to go into detail—are apprehended wherever possible.

Israel: Security Fence

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider that the Israeli policy of building a wall against the Palestinians is lawful and what discussions they have had with the Israeli Government on this policy.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe that Israel's building of a fence on occupied land is unlawful, but we recognise Israel's legitimate security concerns and deplore the terrorist suicide bombings of Israeli civilians. We have urged the Palestinian Authority to exert greater efforts to stop such bombings. At the same time, we have repeatedly urged the Government of Israel to reconsider the route of the fence. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I have raised this issue on a number of occasions with the Israeli Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and ambassador.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for that response. Is not the road map a route to nowhere if Israel continues to provoke the very kind of Palestinian extremism that the wall is designed to prevent? Is not the 397-mile wall, as it will be, particularly provocative and self-defeating, expropriating, as it does, large tracts of Palestinian land and thus tens of thousands of Palestinians? Given the indivisibility of Middle East peace—we had only yesterday a reminder of that—will Her Majesty's Government urge the United States, which is the only real influence on Israel, to show some really tough love to stop the continuation of the building of the wall?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that the road map is a route to nowhere, although the noble Lord qualified what he said by adding that it would become one if Israel went on in this provocative manner. One of the major problems of dealing with this seemingly intractable problem in the Middle East is the apportioning of blame—the desire at every turn to say who began the latest spiral of violence. We believe that the fence is unlawful but we would not so believe if it had been built on the green line. It is the route that the fence has taken that is provocative. It divides Palestinian land and causes real hardship in the everyday life of many Palestinians. The noble Lord should not run away with the idea that the United States has not made many of these points very clear to the Government of Israel, in the same way as we have done.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the majority of my family and friends who live in Israel, together with most other Israelis, deeply dislike the security fence? But most of them believe that, sadly, it is absolutely necessary if they are to protect their children and their families and those of other people from being murdered by suicide bombers and other infiltrating assassins.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that many of your Lordships will understand that. It was brought home to me very forcefully when I was in Tel Aviv the other day that the fence itself enjoys widespread support in the Israeli community on both left and right of the spectrum—apart from those on the extreme right who are unhappy about the number of settlements left on what they would deem the other side of the fence. It is not the existence of the fence but its routing that is causing so much trouble. If that were to be dealt with in a more sensitive way by the Israeli Government, they would win many friends.

Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, we all know why the American Government vetoed the resolution on the security fence. As the pro-Israeli American columnist, Thomas Friedman, said, President Bush is so far in Sharon's pocket that you cannot even see him now. As we hope the same is not true of our Prime Minister, why did not the Government take into account the sensible remarks that the Minister has made about the wall and, instead of following obediently behind President Bush, vote for the resolution?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we took a very sensible view. On 14th October the Security Council voted on a text that demanded Israel should cease the construction of the fence. We considered that that draft had insufficient references to terrorism and, therefore, that it was unbalanced and unhelpful to the implementation of the road map. We abstained in that vote, along with Germany, Bulgaria and Cameroon, and the United States used its veto. A resolution on the fence was subsequently put to an emergency special session of the UN General Assembly where the European Union proposals, which we had been pivotal in negotiating, were brought forward. We believed at that point that we had a more balanced text and voted in favour of the resolution. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will recognise that the United Kingdom Government have played a constructive role in seeking a balanced way forward.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the Minister has referred several times to the road map in the present and future tense. I had believed that the road map was now referred to in the past tense. I have read a number of articles in the Washington press and references from the Israeli press which, in effect, assume that the road map is now dead. If that is the case, what are the British Government, with our partners in the EU—which, after all, is one of the four members of the quartet—doing to make sure that the attempt to revive the peace process has not entirely died with the apparent collapse of the road map?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, no matter how gloomy the prospects, I do not accept that the road map has collapsed. I do not accept what has been written in the press in Washington and Israel or in the press in Arab countries. We remain committed to the road map and we support the Palestinian efforts to form a government who can be a genuine partner for peace. The Abu Allah Government are still struggling to survive. I agree that the augurs do not look good, but I would not wish to bury the prospects of that Government succeeding quite so soon. It is important that every possible encouragement is given both to the Palestinian Authority to form a successful government and to the Government of Israel to deal fairly with that government.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the fence built around the Gaza Strip in 1994 has been effective in keeping out terrorists and Palestinian terrorists from entering Israel? Does she agree with me that of the 170 suicide bombings that have taken place in Israel, most of those people have come across from the West Bank? Does she further agree that while there might be a debate about the route of a fence, there can be no debate about the right of Israel to build such a fence?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope I have made it clear that it is not the existence of the fence that we believe to be unlawful but the route that is taken. The noble Lord is quite right to remind us that since the fence built around the Gaza Strip has been in place, almost all the suicide bombings have come from the West Bank—indeed, I believe that only one has come from the Gaza Strip. I am sure that that unites Israeli public opinion around the feeling that there is a real necessity for the fence, for the sake of their own security. We wish to urge upon the Israelis that while we acknowledge that and see the difficulties they are facing, we hope that they will be a good deal more sensitive than they being are at present about the routing, which is causing a real problem and real hardship.

Chess in Schools

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they propose to develop and implement the recent Department for Education and Skills initiative to promote chess in schools and colleges; and what benefits they expect will be derived from this initiative.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are keen to explore innovative ways of raising levels of motivation and achievement among school pupils. For this reason, we have engaged the British Chess Federation to undertake a small project working with a wide spectrum of school types to explore ways in which this can be achieved within and outside the curriculum through the medium of chess. We will be expecting to learn from the project more about how chess raises achievement.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Given that chess is a young person's sport, that it appeals to them because it is artistic, logical, sociable, vandal-free, and a clash of skills, wills and ideas, can she clarify for the House who is in charge of chess to ensure that such a promotion takes place across the whole gamut of government? Given that Britain has experienced much success in recent years on the chess board, does my noble friend share my sorrow that we were unable to send England's top team to the most recent European championships because of a lack of finance, and that England's and Britain's premier international tournament—the Hastings Open—suffers each year from a lack of the finance and funds that would ensure its continuation?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure who is in charge of chess. It certainly is not me; it certainly is not, and should not be, Her Majesty's Government. I would say it is in the hands of the British Chess Federation and, more importantly, chess players themselves.
	On the important point my noble friend has raised about funding, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport funds the British Chess Federation directly. It is the only governing body in a recognised sport or other activity that receives money directly from the Exchequer. The funding was £60,000 in 2003–04. In addition, the funding chess has received from the lottery over the lifetime of the New Opportunities Fund is about £450,000. I cannot comment on the specifics of why we have been unable to send our chess players, as my noble friend has indicated; I merely point to the fact that funding has been available.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I suppose I should declare an interest as the mother of two boys who once played for the England under-10 championship.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I will pass on your Lordships' congratulations. In their school team, there were 11 boys and one girl. I wonder whether this initiative will encourage girls to take up chess.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I certainly hope that the project we are running with the British Chess Federation, which will ultimately involve eight schools, will encourage all children to participate in chess and see the benefits. I add my tribute to my noble friend's sons, who will probably be very embarrassed to read this in Hansard.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that all after-school activities, not just chess, are of benefit to children? Can she tell us what is happening to the funding of the Kids' Club Network, which has been funded by the New Opportunities Fund? I believe that new arrangements are being made, but I am not sure what is happening.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness meant to say all "appropriate" after-school activities. That was the interpretation I put on her phrase, although perhaps friends in other parts of your Lordships' House did not.
	I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness: after-school activities, particularly study support and opportunities to involve children and the community in what we describe as extended good, are critical to the development of educational standards and the support we offer our young people. I pay enormous tribute to Kids' Club Network and to Anne Longfield, who runs it. It has been hugely supportive of the Government's programme of after-school activities and hugely important to their delivery. We support it financially and will continue to do so.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Minister say how much is being spent on the project referred to in her first Answer? What is the source of that funding? Will the noble Baroness further accept that every time a national initiative is announced and a sum of money is made available for it, that means less money going into the classrooms in our schools?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the sum involved is £9,000. I think that the noble Baroness will agree with me that it is an appropriate sum of money to enable a project to be kick-started but not so big that its loss will be felt by schools. As a result of that project, we hope we will see a handbook showing how chess can be used to raise levels of motivation and achievement, a report on how the schools work together and guidance on using chess in the curriculum and on setting up out-of-school-hours chess clubs. I think that is real value for money.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, many of us can appreciate in our own mind what the benefits would be from a government initiative on chess playing, but the Question asks what "benefits" the Government think,
	"will be derived from this initiative".
	I do not think the Minister answered that Question, and I would be obliged if she did.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thought that I answered the Question perfectly with my previous answer, when I talked about what the British Chess Federation would produce—specifically, a handbook showing how chess can be used to raise levels of motivation and achievement and how schools can work together. These things are very important in terms of children's development. We know, too, that studies in New York indicate that students learning chess have improved significantly in other curriculum subjects. We would be keen to see if that were the case here.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I was taught to play chess at the age of 11—whilst evacuated—by my religious instruction master during periods of religious instruction? That blessing enabled me later, during national service, to win a very modest competition, as a result of which I now possess the station's chess set. Far from having affected my religious beliefs, I think, if anything, it probably enhanced them, and I have continued to offer thanks for that and the many other blessings I have received over the years.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I feel very unqualified to respond to the noble Lord. Perhaps I might refer his remarks to one of the right reverend Prelates.

Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that chess is not and should not be regarded as a substitute for sporting activity in schools on any future occasion? It should be regarded as a game that should be integrated into the curriculum, not a substitute for any form of sporting activity.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, under the 1937 Act, chess is not regarded as a sport, and there are no indications that it should be. Schools regard it as a leisure activity, an opportunity for children to stretch their minds. It is critical, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, knows, that we continue to push for 75 per cent of our students to have two hours of PE and sport in schools to enable them to have a healthy lifestyle. That deals with some of the issues affecting our children, particularly lifestyle and obesity, and ensures they get the fitness and fun they deserve.

Police Force: Racism

Lord Parekh: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they intend to respond to the recent revelation of racism within the police force.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, racism in any public service is unacceptable, unequivocally so in the police. In conjunction with forces, we have introduced new recruitment processes for police officers. These processes are already in place in 13 forces and are being phased in across the remainder of the service. Candidates' attitudes towards race and diversity are tested at least seven times across all exercises in the new assessment centre, including at interview. Those who do not meet the standard are not recruited, regardless of performance elsewhere in the assessments.

Lord Parekh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Although only a small percentage of our police forces—I am told between 5 per cent and 7 per cent—have engaged in racist behaviour, does the Minister not think that it is very striking that in recent years racism has taken on rather vicious and venomous forms, particularly targeted against the Asians, who all seem to be reduced to "Pakis"? Is she aware that we need to do a lot more? In spite of the fact that so much has been done over the past few years, racist practice has gone on and has taken vicious forms. Should we not therefore be thinking in terms of more imaginative and fresh measures, such as covert monitoring of training, or even perhaps sting operations, in addition to more effective selection of recruits and more sensitive training?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend when he says that racism of this nature is and can be venomous. However, it is right that he should emphasise that a small proportion of police officers is thus affected. We have taken energetic and imaginative steps to change the issue. For that reason, we have introduced assessment centres and are considering carefully, with others, how we might further improve the system to ensure that those who wish to make improper use of their power are not given the opportunity to do so.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the Minister please explain why those who were training those police officers had no idea that this sort of behaviour was going on—or, if they had an idea, why they did not stop it? It is the trainers who should have known that that appalling behaviour was going on; they should have stopped it right in the bud, but did not. The fault goes much higher up the line of command than the poor, wretched, ignorant, repellent oafs who made those jokes.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can tell the noble Earl that of course we—or, rather, the police—are reviewing all the circumstances that arose as a result of the programme. However, it is right to tell your Lordships that these things were discovered as a result of covert filming, and it is clear that many of the comments that were made were made in private. That is by no means to take away from the horrendous nature of what was said or done, and it has absolutely been taken on board that the training and those who trained have a responsibility. Together with the police, we shall consider how to address that issue with a greater degree of particularity.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this recent exposure by the BBC has created considerable unease among the black and Asian minorities in this country? More importantly, it has caused much hurt to Mrs Lawrence and has damaged much of the good work that the police have been doing.
	How is it possible that, despite all the attitudinal indicators in the recruitment process, we still have sympathisers of the British National Party finding their place in the police force? Will she encourage whistle-blowing within the police so that such recruits are identified at a much earlier stage? In the mean time, will she use the full force of the police disciplinary system against the officers who have been identified and ensure that the victims are suitably compensated?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join the noble Lord to say that one of the most distressing aspects of this matter is the unease felt among many black and Asian people. Indeed, I had the privilege of meeting Mrs Lawrence shortly before coming into the Chamber. I share with noble Lords the horror that has been expressed by many who have worked so hard and diligently to make the system better and who have succeeded in doing so. They are devastated that the programme has demonstrated that there are still those who wish to behave in that way.
	As I said earlier, the introduction of the new selection process is being rolled out right the way across the field. That is an important initiative. Since May, 1,822 candidates have gone through the new assessment process. Of those, 79—that is, about 4.5 per cent—have failed due to their attitudes to race and diversity. In addition, all candidates are advised that their behaviour will be observed throughout their time at the assessment centre. ACPO has agreed that all forces should implement the new assessment processes, and we expect all to have done so by the summer of 2004. Thirteen forces have implemented new procedures already, and 21 more are implementing them before April 2004.
	I want the House to know that we are energetically pursuing the matter, and there are some very good results. We will not be put off by what we have discovered but will continue and work even harder to ensure that those people are eradicated from our forces.

Lord Laming: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although these are very important issues for the police service, they are also important issues for us all and for all the organisations with which we are associated? Is it not the responsibility of us all to ensure that our culturally diverse society works well for everybody?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely agree with every word that the noble Lord has said.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the Minister join me in expressing her confidence in the many excellent police officers who risk their lives patrolling Britain's streets and deal impartially with those involved in crime and disorder? Will she also undertake to stamp out racism whenever and wherever it occurs in the Police Service, to ensure that public confidence in the police is not eroded?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. There is nothing between the noble Lord and myself. One of the tragedies of these things coming out is that many police officers who have worked so hard and diligently feel besmirched and discouraged that they are all going to be targeted in the same way. They are not; they are fighting with all of us to make our streets a better place for all citizens, irrespective of race, religion or culture. I have no hesitation in saying that we shall continue to give those officers all our support.

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [HL]

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
	Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

[The page and line refer to Bill 78 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT

1 Clause 2, page 2, line 25, after "privileges" insert "as a party or"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This is the first of a sequence of amendments, which I trust will not be contentious, because they are either technical or are in many respects a response to this Chamber.
	The first amendment puts beyond doubt or peradventure that Clause 2 explicitly requires that a person, whether they are a party or a witness, must be served with an explicit notice that makes it clear that, in responding to a right of attendance abroad, they may not be accorded the same rights or privileges as a witness in domestic proceedings.
	There is no a division between us on the purpose. The only doubt was whether it was as explicit as it was felt that it should be in primary legislation. To avoid further suffering, we have agreed to put it in the Bill, so it can be in no further doubt.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Filkin.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I get the sense that the House is keen to move on to the next business of the day, so I have given notice to the noble Lords, Lord Filkin and Lord Goodhart, that I shall speak only on this amendment and none other.
	The Minister is right to say that the amendments are a response to concerns expressed throughout the passage of the Bill. In particular, I thank the Government for introducing Amendment No. 9, which is a response to the only remaining bone of contention on Third Reading, when we won a Division supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It raised a question about the behaviour of officers from overseas when carrying out surveillance in this country. I believe that the Government's Amendment No. 9 fully achieves the objectives that we had hoped to achieve in our own amendment and is superior to our amendment in that it fully keeps within the normal realms of a statute and how it affects behaviour. I gratefully accept that, and I have no objection to any other amendment.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as Amendment No. 1 was moved in another place by my honourable friend Mr David Heath and accepted by the Government, I support it with pleasure.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

2 Clause 18, page 11, line 20, after "constable" insert "or customs officer"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I shall seek to respond to the spirit of the House by being succinct. This amendment would insert "or customs officer" to ensure that customs officers in Scotland have the same powers regarding warrants as they do in England and Wales, and no more than that. I commend Commons Amendment No. 2 to the House.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

3 Clause 28, page 16, line 19, leave out from "means" to end of line 22 and insert "the Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence adopted by the Council of the European Union on 22nd July 2003"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. Commons Amendments Nos. 3 to 23 update the Bill in light of the fact that the framework decision on freezing orders has now been agreed. Therefore, the amendments try to ensure that the primary Act is as accessible for its users as possible by making it as up to date as possible.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

4 Page 16, line 31, leave out from "in" to "of" in line 32 and insert "Article 3(2)"
	5 Page 16, line 33, leave out "such an order" and insert "an order made by the Secretary of State"
	6 Page 16, line 40, leave out from "by" to "or" in line 42 and insert "the form of certificate annexed to the relevant Framework Decision"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

7 After Clause 81, insert the following new Clause—
	"Driver licensing information
	Information held in any form—
	(a) by the Secretary of State under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), or
	(a) by the Department of the Environment under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/ 154 (N.I.1)),
	(licensing of drivers of vehicles) may be disclosed for the purposes of the Schengen information system (within the meaning of section 81)."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. This amendment seeks to make it clear that it is possible to put information about lost or stolen driving licences on to the Schengen Information System. We believe that that is necessary both to comply with the convention and to help to protect British citizens whose driving licences might be used elsewhere. That will help to counter identity fraud.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Lord Filkin.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I just want to put one question very briefly. Whereas all the other amendments are relatively minor, this amendment is of some significance. I just wondered why the Government felt it necessary to introduce it at such a very late stage in the proceedings on the Bill.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I think that we have done it simply because it was not apparent at an earlier stage that the existing statutory provisions were not sufficient. That is the short and nakedly honest answer.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

8 Clause 82, page 55, leave out lines 41 to 43

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, indicated, the amendments seek again to put on the face of the Bill what we have said many times in many happy hours in Committee—that in the very limited circumstances where foreign police officers are conducting undercover surveillance in the United Kingdom, they have no right to stop and question or challenge.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

9page 56, line 7, at end insert—
	"but no surveillance is lawful by virtue of this subsection if the officer subsequently seeks to stop and question the person in the United Kingdom in relation to the relevant crime."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.
	Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

10 Clause 93, page 62, line 4, at end insert—
	"( ) Any day appointed for the purposes of Part 1 (other than sections 32 to 41), and the related amendments and repeals, is to be one decided by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. This amendment simply deals with the commencement arrangements and makes it explicit that the UK and Scottish Ministers will co-operate on bringing in the measures at the same time in both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom as that will be in the interests of comprehensibility and effective implementation.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

11 Schedule 4, page 67, line 18, leave out from "means" to end of line 21 and insert "the Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence adopted by the Council of the European Union on 22nd July 2003"
	12 Page 67, line 23, leave out "a prescribed provision" and insert "Article 3(2)"
	13 Page 67, line 34, leave out "a prescribed document" and insert "the form of certificate"
	14 Page 71, line 19, leave out from "means" to end of line 22 and insert "the Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence adopted by the Council of the European Union on 22nd July 2003"
	15 Page 71, line 24, leave out "a prescribed provision" and insert "Article 3(2)"
	16 Page 71, line 35, leave out "a prescribed document" and insert "the form of certificate"
	17 Page 75, line 13, leave out from "means" to end of line 16 and insert "the Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence adopted by the Council of the European Union on 22nd July 2003"
	18 Page 75, line 18, leave out "a prescribed provision" and insert "Article 3(2)"
	Schedule 5, page 75, line 29, leave out "a prescribed document" and insert "the form of certificate"
	20 Schedule 5, page 80, line 17, at end insert—

"The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33)

12A The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.
	12B In section 24 (business etc. documents), in subsection (4), for "section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003".
	12C In section 26 (statements in documents that appear to have been prepared for the purposes of criminal proceedings or investigations), for "section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003".
	12D In paragraph 6 of Schedule 13 (evidence before courts-martial etc.)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1)—
	(i) for "section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co- operation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003", and
	(ii) for "letters of request or corresponding documents" there is substituted "requests for assistance in obtaining outside the United Kingdom evidence", and
	(b) in sub-paragraph (4), for "letters of request or corresponding documents" there is substituted "requests for assistance in obtaining evidence"."
	21page 83, line 19, at end insert—

"The Criminal Justice (Evidence, Etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1847 (N.I. 17))

33A The Criminal Justice (Evidence, Etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 is amended as follows.
	33B In Article 4 (business etc. documents), in paragraph (4), for "section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003".
	33C In Article 6 (statements in documents that appear to have been prepared for the purposes of criminal proceedings or investigations), for "section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003"."
	22page 87, line 20, at end insert—
	"54A In section 27 (Lord Advocate's direction), in subsection (2), for "section 4(2B) of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 15(4) of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003"."
	23 Schedule 6, page 90, line 19, column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  "In Schedule 4, paragraphs 6(2) and 8."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 23. I have already spoken to the amendments.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 23.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hunting Bill

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 4 [Hunting: defence]:

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 1, line 18, leave out from "he" to end and insert "conscientiously believed that the hunting in which he was to take part ought to be exempt"

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not hunt, and I am now too old to take it up and thus be made a criminal by this wretched, mean little measure. It comes to us, of course, to satisfy the consciences and feelings of zealots who care little for the consciences of others. It is a Bill which is a mixture of prejudice and nonsense, which my amendment would do something to redeem. I am, however, dreadfully conscious of the fact that there would be no chance whatever of it being accepted by those people down the other end of the Corridor.
	Mr Tony Banks—one could describe him perhaps as the other Tony, the one who says what he means—has brought to the proceedings a degree of stark clarity. On 30th June, he said that,
	"the matter is now highly political and, in many regards, has become totemic".
	We were, he said, in,
	"a situation in which passions and subjectivity rule the day".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/03; col. 91.]
	I just pause to wonder—I think that your Lordships might all reflect upon it—what on earth would happen if the rule of passions and subjectivity were to become the norm. I think that our fragile democracy might be mortally damaged by it. Certainly Parliament would enter into a decline even steeper than exists today.
	I turn for a moment to a very different speech made by Miss Kate Hoey in another place on 30th June from which I shall quote one passage of some length. I think that it is so important that it is worth taking up a moment of your Lordships' time to repeat it here. She said:
	"The Bill is inconsistent. Why is it not okay to hunt hares when it is okay to hunt rabbits? That shows that the Bill has been devised by people who take an attitude of zealotry towards those who hunt. They are opposed to hunting, and they are not prepared to listen".
	Miss Hoey had met people in Parliament Square. She said:
	"I want to pay tribute to the hundreds of women who spent last night and all day in Parliament square. If only some of my hon. Friends had had the decency to go and talk to those young, middle-aged and elderly women who live in the countryside and know what this is all about, rather than treating them with contempt.
	The saddest thing about this whole process is that there has been no listening at all. At Portcullis House, everyone involved in hunting produced a huge amount of work and put in a great deal of effort, but it was all simply ignored because some of the facts did not fit in with the Minister's or the Government's intentions".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/03; col. 116.]
	I am very glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford is supporting this amendment. He spoke at Second Reading of his hope that the Government were looking for a middle way. It has been rudely dashed but that thought of an opportunity missed now leads me to ask, what of Mr Alun Michael? How did he manage, I wonder, to perform such an about-turn at such dazzling speed? Perhaps he had in mind the fate of the "late" Lord Chancellor who nourished the old-fashioned idea that a promise was a promise. His successor on the Woolsack has altogether a more accommodating dictionary.
	I would not like to end my remarks without a word of admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. She has shown the most extraordinary courage and determination in pursuing a cause in which she believes. At Second Reading she lamented that the Bill would make criminals of herself, her husband and her children. She went on:
	"I am sorry to say that, to some, all of this does not matter one jot because they are prepared to sacrifice not just animals but people—their homes, their jobs, their way of life, their communities, especially in places such as Exmoor, which I love—for the sake of some transient peace from a section of the parliamentary Labour Party. If that is allowed to happen, the lasting sense of injustice and resentment in those communities will dog the Government who were responsible, not just for a Parliament or two but for a generation".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 782.]
	Coming from the West Country as I do, I believe that those words of the noble Baroness are absolutely true and justified and should receive the respectful attention they have not yet received from the Benches opposite.
	I marvel how such speeches as those have been swept aside and how the conclusion of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has been ignored simply because it was not what they wanted. Scientific opinions, too, have suffered much the same fate. I refer to the verdict of Dr Lewis Thomas, a vet already quoted in these debates, who said that,
	"any legislation that bans or seriously restricts hunting . . . cannot be regarded as having the welfare of wild animals as its primary objective".
	One hears no words from those who support this Bill to indicate that they have even taken notice of such arguments. Adverse opinion polls count for nothing. So too, rather strangely, do the strongly expressed views of the media. I quote only today, that of the Guardian of 2nd July which states:
	"The majority should hesitate before it rides roughshod over the minority".
	I should have thought that the Labour Party would have that fairly close to its heart as it has had reason to complain of it in the past. The article in the Guardian continued:
	"The peacefully expressed fears of many in the countryside, who see things differently and feel their way of life is under threat from people whom they think do not understand them, have made a persuasive case for a less absolutist approach. This was the spirit that underpinned Mr Michael's bill, and it will be both legitimate"—
	I hope that the noble Lord will note this—
	"and desirable if the Lords reinstate clauses in a similar . . . spirit.
	Like many of your Lordships I have had hundreds of letters on this subject. I had one in favour of the Bill. I quote from one single letter from Mrs Rutherford of Plymouth. In a very short space she encompassed what seems to me to be the whole issue. She wrote:
	"I neither hunt nor follow a hunt but felt I must write to you in defence of hunting and I fear a ban would have far-reaching, adverse consequences for our beautiful countryside, the rural way of life already affected by poor public transport, school closures and inadequate policing"—
	She can say that again! One reason I might just for a moment feel well disposed towards this Bill is because there would be just a chance—an outside chance perhaps—of seeing a policeman in the village in which I live. Mrs Rutherford went on to say,
	"and for this country's long tradition of liberty and tolerance".
	For those who espouse this Bill, liberty and tolerance mean nothing except in the most limited subjective sense.
	I want to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—if he will bear with me for a moment—one further point which I have mentioned two or three times but so far without an answering echo. At Second Reading the noble Lord said quite clearly:
	"The threat of disruption—
	I am not concerned with that now—
	"and unenforceability is not one to which the Government or Parliament can or should succumb".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 771.]
	Does the noble Lord seriously mean that unenforceability is not a matter which should be in the minds of legislators when they contribute to the torrent of legislation which his Government pour through Parliament? The noble Lord might even care to discuss the point with the police.
	I shall finish now but I want to end on this note. I find it very hard to avoid the conclusion that the Government abandoned their search for a middle way in order to placate a bunch of their Back-Benchers who might otherwise embarrass the Government on a host of subjects. Hunting and the countryside, and perhaps your Lordships' House as well, would serve this Government as useful diversions. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 24.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I have been asked by Members with widely differing views on the Bill before us to remind Members of the Committee to speak to the amendment which is before us rather than to make Second Reading speeches. The particular amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, deserves consideration rather than Second Reading speeches.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should just like to say that the whole of my speech was inspired by the way in which a section of the party opposite has paraded its own conscience and ignored that of other people.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I shall quote George Washington, who said:
	"Labour to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience".
	I shall speak very briefly in support of the amendment. For those who hunt, the many more who support hunting and the even many more whose livelihoods depend on it, this is a matter of conscience, deeply felt. Those who oppose the Bill in the form in which it has come before the Committee do not do so out of arrogance or prejudice, attachment to selfish advantage or indifference to rational argument, or simply out of a perverse desire to perpetuate a long-established pattern of life and leisure. They do so out of a passionately and conscientiously-held belief that hunting is right and good—good for animal welfare, social well-being, conservation, wildlife and landscape management.
	It is that combination of conscience with rational argument that makes the case for hunting so strong and convincing, and makes resentment and opposition to the Bill in the form in which it has come from the other place so strong and unrelenting. There is in this matter more than a little spark of that "celestial fire called conscience".
	I shall move from the philosophical to the practical and pragmatic. There is a real risk of unwitting contravention of this deeply unpleasant and undesirable Bill, if by any mischance it were to become law. Imagine an elderly farmer walking with three or four dogs and unexpectedly flushing out a mammal that is not exempt. Do we have to rely on the good sense of the police not to prosecute because that man, or whoever else may be in that position, will technically be guilty of infringing the new law? Do we have to rely on the restraint of those who administer the law?
	It has been said many times that we can rely on that restraint and moderation, but is it really sensible? Would it not be better to acknowledge that there is real risk of gross injustice of the prosecution of someone who conscientiously believes that the activity in which he or she is engaged should be exempt? I support the amendment. It is a matter of conscience, and there is a risk of the misuse of law if the point is not acknowledged.

Lord Renton: I, too, support the amendment, moved for very strong reasons by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I wish to put forward yet another reason. Unless we are very careful, we shall find that foxes suffer terribly if hunting is abolished. I speak not merely as one who hunted regularly in Huntingdonshire until I was 70, but because I live in the countryside. We find there that if foxes are not controlled in numbers, they spread terribly and do enormous damage. They kill lambs, poultry and game. In the interests of life in the countryside, it is therefore essential that the number of foxes should not be increased by the abolition of hunting—and it certainly would be. We cannot get away from that fact.
	If hunting is abolished, foxes, because they will become so numerous, will have to be killed by other means, all of which are most cruel, except one. Shooting is all right if a fox is killed, but if it is wounded it goes away and dies of gangrene, a terrible death. Poisoning and snaring are both illegal, but of course take place already and would do so to a much greater extent. They are horrible ways of killing foxes. The only other way is trapping, but that is ineffective. Foxes are difficult to get into traps; they somehow instinctively do not get in.
	If hunting were abolished, foxes would run the risk of dying of gangrene or being poisoned or snared. I have seen foxes snared; they were still alive and suffering terribly. Of course, one has to go up to the snare and kill the fox. Poisoning is horrible and we do not know how long it takes, because it must vary depending on the poison.
	People say, "Yes, but chasing a fox a long way is cruel". Being of light weight I was able to keep up with hounds, and I got into the habit of counting the number of seconds between hounds closing in and the fox being killed. I never counted more than four seconds. That is a very quick and certain way of killing foxes. In the cubbing season, of course, young foxes are killed without much of a chase. Old foxes are sometimes killed quite quickly in the cubbing season also, as they are during the hunting season. Only those foxes in the prime of life have to be chased.
	I quite understand that what I am about to say will seem incredible to some Members of the Committee. Sometimes I have seen foxes in the prime of life being chased with what looked to me like a grin on their face. I do not think that they minded being chased. When hounds closed in, the end was quick.

Lord Hoyle: If they had a grin on their face and were being destroyed, they might even vote Tory.

Lord Renton: That is an irrelevant comment, quite outside the debate.
	I would like those Members of the Committee who want the Bill to be retained in its original form to bear those factors in mind. For the reasons that I have given, if hunting is abolished foxes will suffer terribly. The amendment does something to avoid that.

Baroness Byford: The whole issue of hunting is a non-party and free-vote issue, but I should support the Government and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in her remarks. It is important that we stick to the amendments. Much though I love my noble friend very dearly, I think that his contribution would have fallen under Amendment No. 28. It might help the Committee all round if we tried to focus on the amendment.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I shall speak exactly to the amendment, which is totally about conscience. The right reverend Prelate talked about conscience, and I am rather struck by the fact that all of us here who vote on the Bill shall do so on the basis of a free vote, as did all those who voted on it in the House of Commons. Therefore, that was voting on the basis of conscience.
	The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, wants to give other people the benefit of conscience. Since we are allowed to have a conscience about the issue, and bearing in mind that about 60 per cent of the British electorate do not believe in a ban on hunting, other people should be able to have a conscience about it as well.
	There is another point about conscience. In the Labour Party, and in other parties, we have always held that if a person has a conscientious objection to an order, he is entitled to take action against it. The person whom the amendment describes would be doing what many people have urged their Members to do for a long time.
	Finally, the Bill is about more than fox hunting; it is about hunting with dogs. One is entitled to point to the Labour Party manifesto, which undertook to bring forward a Bill to ban fox hunting. The Government have gone far further than that. Anybody who hunted deer with dogs would therefore be able to say, "Look here. You did not have a mandate to extend your hunting ban to deer hunting".
	Although the amendment may seem strange to a number of people, who perhaps believe that it should not have been moved and that laws passed by Parliament should be obeyed, that point of conscience should be addressed. Moreover, how far outwith the people's expectation at the previous general election should the Government and Parliament go? We have had a worthwhile discussion. I will be interested to hear the Government's response.

Lord Eden of Winton: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. He spoke with that cogency and moderation to which we have become accustomed in your Lordships' House. I strongly support the views that he expressed.
	When speaking about conscience, most people in this country become rather embarrassed. We feel a little bit uncomfortable when talking about our conscience. We do not like people who parade their conscience publicly. I remember well, when I was at school, that the more unpopular boys were those who tended to do just that. They became somewhat isolated for that reason.
	It is important to emphasise that people feel very strongly. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in his opening remarks at Second Reading, people feel strongly on either side of the matter. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for example, has strong feelings about it. He has spoken frequently about the matter and expressed his views powerfully.
	Conscience, therefore, traverses both sides of the argument and is not the exclusive preserve of those who are opposed to hunting. There are those who are conscientiously opposed to killing animals full stop. They do not like to engage in any form of killing animals. If they carry it to its logical conclusion, they tend to be vegetarians. Many of those who oppose hunting, ostensibly on the ground of conscience, do not oppose eating hamburgers, chicken or other forms of meat at their dinner tables, yet there are those who clearly and conscientiously object to the taking of life for those purposes. The Bill does not defend that, because Schedule 1 exempts certain forms of hunting on the grounds that the hunted species can be eaten. "Conscience" is therefore a fairly loose term in some people's books, but is rigidly applied in the case of others.
	My own attitude to the whole of the Bill, and to the amendment in particular, derives from my conscientiously and deeply held view that hunting with dogs of the quarry species entails least suffering and preserves that degree of utility, which are the two yardsticks by which the measures should be judged, according to Mr Alun Michael when he started out on this course.
	Like the right reverend Prelate, my prime motivations for supporting the continuation of hunting with dogs are the proper management of the quarry species, the proper management of the environment and the conservation of the countryside. I conscientiously believe that it is far less cruel to hunt and kill with dogs than it is to use other methods, as my noble friend Lord Renton made clear. That view was strongly supported in 2000 by two vets, who explored the subject in great detail in an interesting pamphlet, A Veterinary Opinion On Hunting With Hounds. The vets pointed out the grave suffering that could arise from shooting and wounding animals without being able to retrieve them. The shooting and wounding of a fox was anticipated by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in the Bill. He expressly indicated that shooting a fox because it is too big to retrieve with a dog would not be exempt under Schedule 1. So what happens to the wounded fox? It suffers. It suffers a cruel death as a result of the wounding. The vets to whom I referred said that that,
	"represents an unacceptable degree of animal suffering, particularly if, as with foxes and hares, the wounded animal is not followed up and dispatched. No such risk of failure occurs with hunting. The quarry species are not injured and abandoned".
	I give way to the noble Lord.

Lord Harrison: Perhaps the noble Lord will reflect on the fact that so far as estimates go, four out of five foxes that are dispatched are dispatched by shooting. As that is the current situation, we therefore have a cruelty problem now. Would the noble Lord's solution be to eliminate shooting and to introduce universal fox hunting with hounds? I think not.

Lord Eden of Winton: My conscience is quite clear on this subject in that hunting with hounds is the least cruel method. In wild animal control, shooting occurs right across the board. There is shooting of deer, hare, rabbit, fox, wild boar and other animals which I shall not detail. But shooting takes place, and one has to hope that it is carried out by skilled marksmen and that it does not cause undue suffering. But the fact remains that shooting does cause suffering and hunting with dogs causes least suffering.
	Therefore, if I may put it at its mildest, there is room for exercise of one's conscience on both sides of this argument. Members of the Committee may well call to mind the words of Mark Twain:
	"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practise either of them".
	On this particular occasion, I do choose to practise my conscience, and I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend.

Baroness Mallalieu: I do not like to sound a discordant note and I agree with all that has been said in the course of this debate, save for one thing. I do not believe that the amendment should appear on the face of the Bill. As currently drafted, it would be unworkable and, in my view, would drive the proverbial coach and horses through the registration and licensing scheme which Mr Alun Michael devised and which I hope this House will try to restore and improve.
	However, in one sense, this amendment is one of the most important and fundamental on the whole Marshalled List because it raises the topic which underlines the enactment of any new criminal legislation. The Bill that we received from the House of Commons was designed to turn into a crime something that has been done for hundreds of years with the approval and encouragement of the communities where it takes place and with the approval and encouragement of those without whose co-operation hunting could not happen—namely, the farmers.
	Without exception, all the major farming organisations opposed that Bill. Organisations such as the campaign of which I am chairman—the Labour supporters' Leave Country Sports Alone campaign—undertook the production of some maps in a number of marginal rural constituencies. Every farmer was interviewed and a map was coloured accordingly. In no constituency did the proportion of farmers who wanted hunting to continue fall below 90 per cent.
	This spring on Exmoor, where I farm in a small way, 722 farmers in the area hunted by the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, whose farms accounted for more than 90 per cent of the total area hunted by those hounds, signed a declaration stating that they regarded deer hunting as the only practical way in which the herd of red deer could be managed and preserved there.
	Those who have direct responsibility for the management of populations of wild mammals in this country are overwhelmingly the farmers and landowners who want hunting to continue. Not merely do they believe overwhelmingly that hunting is an option which should remain available to them in doing that job; there is also a widespread opinion that the effect of a ban would not be, as others have already said, to decrease numbers killed but probably the reverse. As noble Lords will remember, there was evidence to that effect in the Burns report and at Portcullis House. But, even more importantly in the context of this amendment, there is among very many a firmly held view based on evidence and their own experience that the other methods of control that would be left to them are likely to increase and not decrease animal suffering. So far, we in this Committee have changed that Bill to permit registered hunting, and the extent of it is something that we shall go on to deliberate in due course.
	But I ask those who oppose hunting to reflect on this. If, for example, my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and those who support him were asked whether they would comply with a law which required them to do something which in their view caused an unnecessary increase in suffering to an animal, I suspect that I know what their answer would be. Yet that is the very position in which the majority of country people, who have responsibility for managing wild animals, would find themselves in the event of a ban.
	A criminal law which does not have the support of the law-abiding community to which it applies because that community holds the belief that it is being asked to do something wrong, and a law which requires the members of that community to adopt methods in their ordinary, essential tasks which they believe deliberately cause unnecessary suffering—the original definition of "cruelty"—is a recipe for bad law. It is a recipe not only for a law which is unenforceable but for one which brings the legal process generally into disrepute.
	Once one passes legislation which offends the conscience of the community to which it applies, one strikes a blow at the administration of justice and, just as significantly—perhaps even more so—at the unity of those communities and of our nation. To force such legislation on to the statute book would—as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, reminded me I have already said—create lasting resentment, I believe, not only in rural communities but among those who care that we live in a free society. As the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—a true liberal—reportedly told the Prime Minister, it would be widely perceived as,
	"the most illiberal measure in the past 100 years".
	The difficulty of enforcement of a measure which does not have the support of the community and which offends that community cannot be exaggerated. Time and again I have heard people say, "The police are our friends. Many of them come hunting with us. This would make them our enemies". Enforcement is a matter that we must consider at every stage of the Bill.
	A chilling picture of what might happen is contained in an article in the Police Review of 19th September this year, written by Mr Hamish Rogers, an RSPCA chief superintendent. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Simon, who drew it to my attention. In an article in which the RSPCA inspector dismisses the arguments against a ban and says that there will be no difficulty in enforcing it, he says:
	"It would be nearly impossible to prepare dogs, horses and riders for a hunt without going unnoticed. Where reports of illegal hunting are received, intelligence-led operations could prevent a meet taking place".
	He goes on:
	"The successful prosecution of offenders is often reliant on information from members of the public, and there is no reason to suspect this will change".
	What a picture of life in rural Britain in 2003 or 2004. Are we to have spies and snoopers peering through the gap in the fence to see whether the little girl next door is plaiting her pony in preparation for the meet the next day and then ringing the authorities? What a problem for rural police, who rely on the good will and co-operation of local people to do their general policing job effectively. And what a problem, ultimately, for the administration of justice. We have already heard about that from a number of very senior police officers, not to mention the Magistrates' Association.
	Who are the new criminals to be? The local vet? Five practising vets used to hunt with the pack with which I hunted until quite recently. One can brand people as criminals, one can change the law and one can tell people that they are criminals, but in the dock will be elderly people, women, children, vets, doctors and nurses. No matter how much one calls them criminals, it will be apparent to the nation that they are nothing of the sort. The law will be brought into disrepute and so will a Government who devoted their time in office to such nonsense and allowed their zealots to have their way. Bad law does not last.
	There is general agreement, at any rate in this Chamber, that much as many of us dislike the idea of still more regulation, hunting which is properly conducted, which serves a useful purpose and causes no greater suffering than other available methods, should be permitted under strict control. Mr Alun Michael spoke over and over again to that effect: he wanted a law to emerge which stood the test of time. A banning Bill will not end this matter; rather, it would be the start of a new and more unpleasant period of division.
	In his evidence at Portcullis House, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, made that very point; namely, that a quick fix, a quick solution, would not be the answer. He said that something which would work needed co-operation and agreement. When one tells people that they must do something they believe to be wrong they tend to take no notice. I cannot forget the day when I and others in this House walked down Whitehall past the Cenotaph at the front of a column of people who numbered over 400,000. That was just over a year ago and was then the largest demonstration this country has ever known—there have been larger since. The silence as we walked past the Cenotaph was something that those of us there will never forget.
	Freedom of conscience is what this country is about. We do not readily give in to bullies or to people who use their power in office to force us to behave in ways which we believe are wrong. The amendment is right to remind us that those who seek to do so are embarking on a course which would have unpredictable and unpleasant consequences for the whole of the nation, but to put it in this form on the face of the Bill would be a mistake.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: We should take it as read, as an assumption, that those who oppose a ban and those who support it are likewise motivated by conscience. Having listened on more occasions than this to my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford speak with very great force on this matter in a direction opposite to the one that I hold, I could hardly think otherwise.
	It is clear that those who support the continuance of hunting with dogs do so in the belief that it is best for the country and the countryside that that should happen. It is also clear that those who oppose it do so from a Christian perspective because they believe that whatever may be the utilitarian arguments, the control and, indeed, even the protection of animals, should not be made a matter of sport if that evinces an inappropriate attitude between humankind and animals. So there is conscience on both sides of the matter.
	I want to speak entirely on the inclusion of the reference to conscience on the face of the Bill and to agree on that particular matter, if on no other, with what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has just said. It is important that we live in a country that recognises conscience, but it is also important to be clear that conscience is not simply what we feel strongly about. Conscience is about being informed by convictions. I believe that in our society and, I regret to say, in our Church, we have reached a situation where the word "conscience" is used rather more freely than it should be.
	On this matter the word "conscience" probably is entirely appropriate to the views of some people, but it is also appropriate to the views of those people who would see it as their business to obstruct hunting if it were allowed to continue. It concerns me greatly that there should be written on to the face of the Bill a reference to something which will be used on both sides of this particular argument which will allow both sides to appeal to this amended clause as justification for their attitudes.
	I believe that we live in a country with freedom of conscience. However, I also believe that freedom of conscience involves being prepared to pay the consequences of breaking the law if you believe that your conscience drives you to do that. The words here are witness to the seriousness of the debate and to the fact that for many people this is a religious issue which has come to us from the other place for that reason. For many others their conscience is motivated by more humanistic instincts. However, to write such words on to the face of the Bill sets a precedent in our attitude to law which would be disastrous. On how many other Bills will there be written a right of conscientious dissent not just in one's mind but in one's action?

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I thank the right reverend Prelate for giving way. It may save him a good deal of pain and anxiety if I tell him at this stage that I agree entirely with what he says: these are not words which should be written on to the face of the Bill. However, he is right in thinking that my aim is to ensure that the people who espouse the Bill recognise that conscience is a two-edged weapon.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: I would not want to continue a speech in favour of a course of action which those supporting the amendment no longer support. So I am happy to sit down and trust that we can proceed to consider the amendment.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: In her excellent speech the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, began and, indeed, ended by telling us that the amendment was unworkable. I perceive a rather dangerous situation arising. When those on the Government Front Bench insist on passing a law which they have been warned is unenforceable, it is hardly surprising that noble Lords table amendments which are also unenforceable. I think that we are getting into a rather dangerous position.
	I have not sought previously to intervene in the debate. I have never hunted and cannot claim to know anything about the finer points of the sport. However, I strongly support freedom, conscience and tradition. As soon as I read the amendment I felt that I must speak, albeit briefly, in support of it.
	I am very well aware of the need to destroy foxes. Surely, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that there is that need. I have lived in the country for most of my life and know all about the harm these vermin can do. I have seen a hen-house in which every single bird was killed by a fox for absolutely no reason. One chicken was quite enough for a good meal for him. Foxes kill far more than just chickens. I believe conscientiously that foxes must be destroyed. I believe conscientiously what I read in the reports of those who have studied the matter, which tells me clearly that the other methods to be used if hunting ends are far more cruel and far more likely to cause pain to the fox. So I was greatly impressed when I read the amendment.
	It seems to me that the Bill came into being because a section of the public declared that they conscientiously objected to hunting. Everyone has a right to their conscience and to hold views that he or she thinks are right and in accord with that conscience. However, I think that those people reserved quite a large part of their conscientious objections to country people and their traditions; they did not understand the first and they disliked the second.
	Apparently, they had no conscientious objection to lambs, pheasants, quail or hens being torn to death. It was only the fox who was enjoying himself, after all. That seemed to be perfectly acceptable and perfectly in line with their consciences. But no government should run a country which allows some of its citizens a conscience but not others. They should not adhere only to what they hear from the section of the public that they believe in and agree with because others have a right to their conscience too.
	In a free country—and I sometimes wonder whether this one is still free—everyone has a right to a conscience, whether or not the Government agree with what he says. The amendment makes that point. On two occasions at least hundreds of thousands of people took part in hugely impressive demonstrations in London. They were expressing their wish and their conscientious belief that hunting should continue: some because their livelihoods were threatened; some because they followed the hunt; some because they knew that foxes must be controlled; and some because they believed in freedom. But all of them, in their different ways, were expressing what their conscience led them to believe. Only the Government believe that their wishes and their words should be ignored and that their consciences are not as important as the consciences of the anti-hunt lobby.
	How can it be right on an issue of this kind—which has nothing whatever to do with national politics, which sets country against town and which is deeply divisive—to pass such a hated law and to ignore what free people are expressing as their conscience. If country people truly believe that hunting breaks no moral code, who are this Government to criminalise them?

Viscount Bledisloe: The noble Lord who moved the amendment has now, quite rightly—albeit belatedly—admitted that it would be wholly wrong to put on the face of a Bill a provision which states that, taking part in 'X' is criminal, but you don't need to obey that; you can get off it if you thought that the legislation should be something different.
	Surely, it is now time—if not past the time—for the noble Lord to withdraw that amendment and to enable the Committee to get on with its proper duty of considering amendments made to the Bill and intended to alter it, rather than those merely pegged for Second Reading speeches.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I go further than the noble Viscount: as one who is totally opposed to the abolition of hunting and totally in favour of returning a Bill to the Commons that is more nearly like the one introduced to the Commons, I believe that this amendment is inimical to that tactic. It gives a hostage to fortune; and it will be held up by those against hunting and against this House as an example of how out of touch—indeed, in some ways how unrealistic—we are. I wonder why the amendment was ever tabled.

Earl Peel: With—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It seems to be the Committee's wish to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on whether he wishes to withdraw his amendment. I am finding this difficult. I am trying to go with the mood of the Chamber. It seems that the Committee would like to hear first from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.

Earl Peel: With the leave of the Committee, it was not my intention to speak to the amendment, but one or two points have been made which have inspired me to rise to my feet. I refer to some of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Renton. It is absolutely essential that we understand from the outset that the ways and means of controlling foxes in this country have evolved over the years. Different practices suit different places, and hunting plays a hugely important part in that process.
	However, and I say this with the greatest of respect to my noble friend, to condemn snaring as being automatically cruel is wrong. Snaring, if done correctly, is a perfectly humane way of controlling foxes. The same applies to shooting. The noble Lord referred to poisoning. Poisoning is an illegal activity. You are not entitled to poison foxes, and quite rightly so. So my only point, which I regard as very important, is to try and clarify that, unless we get our facts absolutely straight, we compare one form of control against another at our peril.

Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he would bear in mind that snaring is illegal also.

Earl Peel: No, snaring is not illegal.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am not altogether sorry to have annoyed both Front Benches. I seldom succeed in annoying both Benches on the same day in the same context, but I shall recover.
	I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that these words on the face of the Bill would be just what I would object to most; namely, unenforceable and hopeless. But I thought—and I absolutely make no apology whatever for this—that when the authors of the Bill used words to show, as they did, that passions and subjectivity are the rule of the day, one was entitled to table amendments like this which perhaps have an element of unreason in them to remind them and others that there are strong beliefs on the other side of this argument and that they have no right whatever to continue their bullying tactics.
	I am happy to have made that protest. I make no apology for that. I shall nevertheless respond to the obvious will of the Committee and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. But I hope that the Minister will take an opportunity sometime to answer the point that I have repeatedly made about enforceability.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mancroft: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 1, line 18, after "was" insert—
	"(a) registered, or
	(b) "

Lord Mancroft: The amendment is consequential on an earlier one. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Campbell-Savours: moved Amendment No. 25:
	After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
	"DEFENCE: PROTECTION OF SHEEP IN SHEEP GRAZING AREA IN DESIGNATED NATIONAL PARK
	(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1 to prove that the conduct to which the charge relates consisted of using dogs for the control of foxes for the purpose of protecting sheep on a fell or moorland within a sheep grazing area in a designated National Park.
	(2) In this section "designated" means designated in an order made by the Secretary of State.
	(3) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament."

Lord Campbell-Savours: In moving my Amendment No. 25, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 26. I shall speak narrowly to my amendment. The case for Amendment No. 25 was very usefully put by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, at Second Reading. The noble Lord, who is a former Minister for Agriculture, said:
	"It is essential that we build into the Bill an exemption for foot packs, which play such an important role . . . I [the noble Lord, Lord Jopling,] hope that the Government will look sympathetically at an amendment to exempt mountain foot packs from the Bill".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 806.]
	I come to the debate from a very different position. I presume that the noble Lord will be supporting the principle of registration that I have been opposing and will further oppose, as I am in favour of a ban on hunting. That was the position I took throughout my 21 years as a Member of the other place. I represented a constituency that contained a number of fell packs, but where there was a constant and heated argument about hunting in the community. I can tell the Committee that of all the issues I had to face as a Member of Parliament, hunting raised the most correspondence. During general election campaigns, the number of letters I received on the issue of hunting was often 10 times or more the total volume of correspondence on any other issue, because it was a live debate.
	While recognising that, I had to take into account the considerable concern about the Lake District National Park and what would happen if hunting were to be banned. I must say that the majority of correspondence that I received during all those years was always against the hunt, but an argument was being advanced that had to be addressed. Essentially, it was that there were problems in the Lake District in lambing season and if hunting were banned, that would lead to an invasion of guns in an area subject to intensive tourist penetration throughout the year.
	I shall cite two letters from the many that I received—these are not the photocopied letters that many of us will have received—from people who live in Cumbria. A chap called John Hayton of Thackthwaite, near Cockermouth, writes:
	"I am an upland sheep farmer in the Lake District National Park, who every year suffers losses to foxes. The local hunt does a great job in fox control by keeping numbers in check and are on hand in the spring to help farmers if they have a particular problem with worrying by bringing hounds to the lambing area, even if hounds are unable to catch the culprit, the very fact that hounds have been about can sometimes have the desired effect. Without hounds to carry out this very necessary task we would have to rely on shooting"—
	that word is in capitals.
	"surely no one really expects us to do that in an area where we already have up to 14 million visitors a year".
	I cite another letter from a chap called Paul Renison of Troutbeck, near Windermere, who writes:
	"I work on a farm called Braesteads—a traditional fell farm near Ullswater in the Lake District National Park. Through my work as a shepherd especially in lambing time I have witnessed the damage foxes can cause. We lost 15 lambs to the fox last year. If this is multiplied by a replacement cost of £50 per animal (not including time and effort) the damage lost the business £750. Would any business suffer this unnecessary expense (which will be higher) if a tried, tested natural preventative measure were to be outlawed?"
	This evening, I have sought to introduce amendments to deal with that problem. Let me tell the Committee where the amendment came from. It was drawn up in 1987. Some of my noble friends may be interested to know where it was drawn up. It was drawn up for a meeting of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, because we were considering whether it was then possible to include in the 1987 Labour Party manifesto some reference to the problem that existed in national parks. As a result of that amendment, words were included that I understand have subsequently been withdrawn.
	I have hawked the amendment around for the past 15 years on the basis that one day a Bill would be presented and we would have to face the reality of what we were going to do in the parks. I now present it to the Committee. However, there is a problem. There is an inconsistency between the Bill and my amendment. The amendment does not sit well with the principle of registration. I accept that, but I ask the Committee to be realistic.
	We all know what the Commons wants. If we are truthful to ourselves, we all know what will happen to the Bill when, or if, it finally makes it back to the Commons and is further considered. All the clauses on registration—well argued as they certainly will have been in this place—will inevitably be removed. If my amendment is left in the Bill, it will cause substantial discussion in the other place. Indeed, it is the bottom line and only amendment that is credible in the context of the 2:1 support for the Bill in the other place.
	So I ask the Committee to take that into account. Simply be realistic. If you knock out my amendment tonight, all that will happen is that the Bill will go back; it will be kicked around; registration will be removed; and the whole question of exemption for national parks will not even be considered. On that basis, I move my amendment.
	Finally, another issue will be raised in the other place if my amendment were to succeed in this House. A good briefing was produced by the animal welfare lobby on whether the case for Lake District exemption is valid. It was argued in its document that there was an abuse of the use of artificial earths by the hunts in the national park. If that is the case—I am not unconvinced that there may be some merit in it and artificial earths may have been used on occasion—the answer is simple. Legislate against them; make them illegal; stop the hunts using them, if they do. On that basis, I beg to move.

Lord Crickhowell: I have one reason for objecting to the amendment in its present form, which has been well set out by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I want registration. I am deeply sceptical of the idea that if the Bill returned to the other place, an amendment such as this would be accepted in any case.
	However, I have a quite different set of reasons for being critical of the amendment—to which, in a way, I should be sympathetic. I happen to live in a national park. I used to represent another national park in Pembrokeshire. As Secretary of State, I suppose that I was responsible for a third: the Snowdonia National Park. I find it impossible to understand why we should support an amendment to allow hunting to protect sheep in a national park but not in all the other places in which sheep are just as vulnerable.
	If I stick to Wales, it happens that to the west of the Brecon Beacons National Park, which embraces the Black Mountains and the Brecon Beacons, is a vast area of upland of almost identical character, where the sheep are just as threatened. In my former constituency of Pembrokeshire, the national park was a narrow strip around the coast. Most of the sheep under threat would have been outside the national park. If we consider North Wales, the amendment would include Snowdonia but not the Berwyns. The amendment would also exclude the whole of mid-Wales.
	If it had not been for the rather ruthless cull of hereditary Peers, I have little doubt that Lord Davies of Llandinam would be sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches today. He, and his family before him, have run one of the most formidable foot packs anywhere in the country with magnificent long-haired hounds. I find it extraordinary that we should be considering an amendment that would exclude the area in which Lord Davies's hounds operate. I take the opportunity to suggest that Lord Davies's foot pack is a splendid example of a refutation to those who believe that hunting is only for toffs. Few toffs would keep up with Lord Davies's hounds on the very hilly country in which they operate.
	Equally, I could turn to the south of the Brecon Beacons National Park, to the industrial area of south Wales, where many sheep have been, and continue to be, hunted by miners' packs. Those who took part in the splendid march to which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred—

Viscount Bledisloe: Does the noble Lord really mean that a very large number of sheep have been hunted to death by foot packs?

Lord Crickhowell: I did not say that that number of sheep had been hunted to death by foot packs. I am saying that sheep are just as much, or perhaps more, under threat from foxes in the industrial areas in south Wales, where foot packs usually almost entirely composed of miners and ex-miners seek to protect them.
	Those who participated in that march will remember that among the largest and most vociferous groups were miners from south Wales. Indeed, at a later demonstration, which got out of control and where some people attempted to climb over the fence of Parliament, I fear that among the leaders were those probably trained by Mr Scargill. They were certainly south Wales miner's packs.
	The amendment would select for protection a relatively small area of the threatened uplands but leave out the rest. One must also ask why we are to protect only sheep in those areas. Unfortunately, foxes in the uplands, as elsewhere, are just as destructive of chickens and other livestock and animals. We are confronted with an amendment lacking in logic and against the principle that emerged clearly in the consultations undertaken by Alun Michael that animals should be treated on an equal and comparable basis, and that we should not discriminate. Surely if we are to select particular areas or forms of hunting for special treatment, we should leave it to a registrar, with all the ability that he would have to take evidence and to consider the individual facts to reach a sensible arrangement for dealing with the matter.
	Although the amendment is no doubt moved with the best intentions, it cannot be justified in logic or reason. It would also undermine the important principle that we should opt for registration and the proper control of hunting throughout the United Kingdom. On that basis, I hope that it will not be pressed.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Most unusually, and worryingly to me, I have reached a different conclusion from that just reached by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. Of course I agree with him in the simple position that the law should deal with hunting on an equal and uniform basis and, as I believe, by a registration scheme. But I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who moved the amendment, is coming from: his old constituency, which extends over the delectable hunting country of the Blencathra, the Ullswater, and, for all I know, the Eskdale and Ennerdale and perhaps the Coniston and the Melbreak.
	I, too, have the good fortune to know those hunts and over many years, off and on, to have gone out with them. I know what they mean to the dalesmen and women of those parts and, as the noble Lord graphically made clear, to those who owe their exiguous livelihood to their sheep. In the horrid language of this horrid Bill, I, too, have engaged,
	"in the pursuit of a wild mammal [when] . . . one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit".
	What was that wild mammal? It was a most efficient and savage killer of lambs born and reared, as they must be, on the fell side.
	Who were my fellow followers? They were about as far removed from the stereotypes so lovingly hated by those behind the Bill before the Committee as is possible to imagine. They follow the hounds and climb, not on horses but on foot. Their boots are those of the farmyard, and their clothes are those of every working day, which happens to come round seven times each week. Typically, their lives in the dales are lonely and very hard. The hunt is the linchpin of what social life they have. If I may quote from the old song:
	"When the fire's on the hearth and good cheer abounds,
	We'll drink to Joe Bowman and his Ullswater hounds".
	I know that it is hard for people who live in the South, as I do, to understand what the hunt means to those people. For people living in the South, the fox gets only at their dustbins and never at their incomes. For their social lives they have an embarrassment of riches. I just want the supporters of this blunderbuss Bill to know that in all seriousness I fear for the very lives of many people living in the dales if their hunts were destroyed.
	The law should deal with all hunting on an equal basis and by a system of registration. I shall support an approach to the Bill that would achieve that in later votes and opportunities. If people wish to hunt on horses, with hounds and in customary hunting kit, that is no reason to single them out for criminal punishment. I have had the good fortune to hunt in that way, too.
	The amendments, provokingly selective though they are, confront me with a dilemma. I shall resolve it by supporting them for the moment, without prejudice to my main position, because if the worst came to the worst, one bit of hunting preserved, in any event, would be better than none.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My name is attached to the amendment. I wish to speak in favour of it, but not quite from the same perspective as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I support registration; that is extremely important. I want to see the uplands hunted, indeed over the widest possible area. In that, I agree with most of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. But, as I understand it, an amendment of this kind is the only one that may be accepted in the House of Commons. I regard it as a last-ditch amendment.
	My name and that of my noble friend Lord Hooson are attached to Amendment No. 100, which will not be discussed. It covers foot packs in the area outside national parks and is preferable to this amendment. I am looking at it from a last-ditch point of view. Very specifically, I understand that it is the only amendment in the whole Bill that might be acceptable to the House of Commons. I do not know whether that is an accurate assessment but, given what happened when the House of Commons introduced a complete ban, it is in the realms of possibility.
	I represented the Brecon and Radnor constituency for 11 years in the other place. Farmers frequently hunt on foot in the Brecon Beacons National Park. Foxes are a big menace to lambs. The hunts go to the highest mountains to track down foxes. Hill farmers must be able to protect their sheep from the predations of the fox and maintain the sustainability of the national parks so that ground-nesting birds are not eliminated. The call of the curlew in the days of my youth in the Brecon Beacons National Park was a frequent harbinger of spring. Now it is practically not heard at all because of many changes in the environment, one of the most significant of which is the predations of the fox on ground-nesting birds. Basically, the amendments mean that hunting in national parks will be exempt and that a person cannot be charged with the offence of hunting.
	I also recall what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said about miners' hunts. There is one hunt in particular—the Banwen Miners hunt—which frequently hunts the Brecon Beacons National Park. It plays an important part in the social life of the area and in ensuring a sustainable population of foxes in the southern part of the Brecon Beacons National Park.
	Another important proviso should be discussed in relation to this amendment. There is a lot of open access now to national parks, and the issue of shooting in national parks obviously has an important bearing on the matter. I support this amendment which is why my name is attached to it, but I regard it as a last ditch amendment that will secure hunting at least in national parks if the House of Commons is minded to ban it everywhere else.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I understood him to have degrouped Amendment No. 100. He seemed to be sorry about that. Is he now speaking to that amendment with this group?

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thought that I had made it clear that I was not speaking to Amendment No. 100 at all. It has been totally degrouped. If Members of the Committee look at the groupings, they will see that Amendment No. 100 is the last but one at present and addresses a much wider issue than this narrow one of national parks.

Lord Ackner: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he enlighten my ignorance? If this last-ditch amendment were to be accepted by Members in the other place, would it deprive them of the opportunity of using the Parliament Act?

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I did not hear the noble and learned Lord's final words.

Noble Lords: The Parliament Act.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I would have to defer to the noble and learned Lord in that case and take legal advice about whether that would happen. I have not thought the matter through and have always found it a good idea not to have an instantaneous response to a question of that kind.

Lord Harrison: I find myself in some agreement with speakers in this debate in so far as I think that this set of amendments may trespass the principle of uniformity of approach. However, my approach is entirely different. The issue of the morality of chasing foxes for sport is identical whether we are talking about upland or lowland areas. However, I am conscious of why my good friend Lord Campbell-Savours has moved the amendment and his purpose in so doing.
	In my noble friend's opening speech, he acknowledged that he was in favour of a ban on hunting with dogs. We have heard evidence of the paraphernalia of fox hunting that exists elsewhere in the country, including artificial earths and the dumping of livestock in order to encourage foxes. However, I seek clarification. As far as I understand the Bill before us, flushing foxes for pest control is allowed under certain circumstances, albeit with two dogs only. If my noble friend is unable to confirm that, perhaps the Minister can do so.
	I conclude my remarks on this set of amendments by referring to the general case that has been made elsewhere about the fox predation of sheep. I, like many colleagues who contributed to the Second Reading debate, received many letters for and against fox hunting. I have attempted to reply to them all. One letter that I received was from a sheep farmer in Cumbria. I wrote back to him thanking him for his letter and asking him for his view on the ground of whether foxes do indeed predate in the way that it is suggested. This is his reply:
	"In answer to your request as to my views on the extent of fox predation, I have to say that I find it difficult to come to any clear conclusion. Foxes definitely take quite a lot of lambs, but lambs spend most of their short lives dreaming up ways of dying before they can be turned into a chop. It is usually impossible to say whether a particular lamb taken, had succeeded in its endeavour, and the fox was merely recycling the resulting carcass, or whether the fox did the killing.
	"When our flock is lambing in by, I have to say in support of your argument, that if a particular fox is being a nuisance, the easiest solution is a gun, this does not, however apply when they are back on the fell".
	I have tried to be even handed about the reply that he sent to me, because he also gratuitously told me that drag hunting, which I fully support, is Bulgarian Cabernet Sauvignon compared with claret. We may take different views on the wine that we drink. However, there is some doubt about the matter. There have been extensive scientific studies, but I seek clarification from the Minister. I think that what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours seeks is already covered in the original Bill.

Lord King of Bridgwater: I would not want to leave this matter purely in the hands of those in the Brecon Beacons or the Lake District. I would hope to include Exmoor, in terms of the national parks and, in the amendment that is linked with this one that mentions areas of outstanding natural beauty, the Quantocks as well. Certainly, the problems referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, are the same in those areas—just as they are in the enjoining land that does not happen to be part of a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty.
	I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and disagree with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, who I thought was rather unkind to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I think that this is a very promising amendment. The first thing that it does is to accept in principle that there is nothing unacceptable about hunting with dogs, which is an important statement. Although the noble Lord does not want to admit it, he wishes that there were some system that allows for certain sorts of hunting with dogs. I thought that that was what the registration principle was all about—to allow properly conducted hunting.
	I was interested to hear his reference to the 1987 Labour Party manifesto. I suspect that many people were sympathetic to his amendment, which he subsequently pocketed for further use, for the same reason that we have heard many times in another place. It is not the principle of hunting with dogs, but rather, if I may refer to the Freudian remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, it is the paraphernalia that many people cannot accept. I have received an interesting letter from Mr Douglas Batchelor, the chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, which I mention in connection with the hunt packs of the fells that operate in the national parks mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. The letter states:
	"I am sure you will agree that people hunt mostly because they enjoy it. Our case is quite simply that they should not enjoy it".
	That is accurate. That is the view of many people. It is not to do with the absolute principle of whether one should pursue and destroy predatory foxes with dogs; it is about the way in which one does it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred to the impact of tourism, to the number of walkers on the hills and to the impracticability of shooting in many areas. The Government's case throughout the Bill is, largely, that, at all times, shooting is preferable. We know well the number of visitors and tourists on Dunkery Beacon and on Exmoor. Should people be able to use high-powered rifles at any time in such areas free of hazard? As a former Member of Parliament, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will know that, the moment that one shot passes within half a mile of a visiting group of schoolchildren walking over Exmoor or the Quantocks—the noble Lord will know that it is often difficult to tell how close a shot may be—there will be an outcry.
	In his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has established an important principle: there is nothing wrong with hunting with dogs, provided that it is done in a proper and orderly manner. I commend him for tabling the amendments. I take the same view as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden: the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, should be supported because his amendment would establish a principle. The principle of registration lies behind it, and it fits properly with the registration concept.

Lord Kimball: Like my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. The Committee must realise that, in all the areas, we must look after the national sheep flock. It is a rather special sheep flock.
	Does the Committee realise what hefting is all about? Hefting is important in moorland areas. For many years, I had a sheep farm in Sutherland. We used to send the sheep away to winter in Aberdeenshire. They came back at the end of their first year and went to a yield herding, where the tups were not put out. They had a second year not being tupped at home in the same area and did not go back to their original herding until they were two years old. Two shears after clipping, they went back to their original herding.
	The interesting thing is that, within two or three days of having been on a yield herding and having been down in Aberdeenshire for their first winter, the sheep would automatically gravitate towards the areas from which they had originally come—the good green burn or a particular green area on a hill. That is what it is all about with moorland sheep. We must look after them, not only in the Lake District but in all other moorland areas and in Wales. I hope that the Committee realises the importance of hefting.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I must first declare an interest: I live in an area of outstanding natural beauty that may, shortly, be designated a national park. The inquiry into whether the South Downs will become a national park starts in three weeks, so I could find myself moving from an AONB to a national park in two or three years' time.
	I am interested in the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I notice that there is a sort of gradation about them that may have passed by some other noble Lords. The first amendment refers to national parks in a sheep-grazing area. The second amendment drops the phrase,
	"within a sheep grazing area".
	It refers simply to,
	"protecting sheep on fell or moorland".
	The third amendment refers simply to,
	"protecting sheep in a designated National Park".
	It has dropped the words "fell or moorland". I have taken the liberty of tabling an amendment to that third amendment that would add the words,
	"or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty".
	I find myself in a bit of a difficulty. My spirit is with my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden and not, for once, with my noble friend Lord Eden of Winton—I mean my noble friend Lord Crickhowell; he and I sit on the same EU sub-committee, so I am sure that he will have it out with me tomorrow morning.
	The national park habit is coming southwards. It started around the Derbyshire Peaks, and it is always said that that is where the idea of a national park was first born in the 1930s. Many people working in the industrial cities around the Peaks found it difficult to get access to the land that is now in the Peak District National Park, as a great deal of it was owned by the water companies, which severely prohibited access for any sort of holiday, walk or hike. The Attlee government's idea of national parks was inspired by the Peak District. The Peak District and the Lake District are still the two largest national parks in terms of budget and number of tourists.
	I have declared my interest. If the South Downs are turned into a national park—that may happen shortly—it will have more visitors than any other and will be bigger than any. We have a lot of sheep that graze. We do not have any fell or moorland. The traditional and difficult way of making money farming the South Downs was not from cereal—the Downs were ploughed during the Second World War only under pressure from the Ministry of Agriculture for more cereals to be grown—but from sheep. There is still a breed of South Downs sheep, which I recommend to noble Lords for the next time that they are shopping. If one can buy South Downs sheep, buy it, rather than New Zealand or even Welsh sheep. South Downs sheep are a traditional means of profit for a farm on the Downs, and we are trying to propagate the South Downs brand, so that farmers may have a bigger income. I declare an interest that I have often declared before: I am chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board.
	I sat on the Benches opposite the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for many years in the other place. He finds himself this evening with a surprising number of supporters whose support he may not be used to. I am sure that he would not wish to have some national parks allowing hunting with dogs in order to protect sheep on fell and moorland, if it was not allowed in other national parks, such as the New Forest, which is about to become one, or the South Downs, which may become one, because they do not have fell or moorland. That would be ridiculous. I hope that, in considering which of his important amendments to press, the noble Lord will pass over Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 and move Amendment No. 27, in which case I shall move my amendment to Amendment No. 27.
	I accept that areas of outstanding natural beauty cover considerably more country than the national parks, but they are also getting a higher status. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 encouraged the formation of statutory conservation boards. Those boards are starting to be formed around areas of outstanding natural beauty; the Cotswolds and the Chilterns are two examples. The exception that the noble Lord proposes is important. As my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater rightly said, it shows that there is a noble Lord on the Government Benches who is willing to accept that hunting should be permitted on certain conditions. That is an important point. However, the exception should be extended, for the reasons that I gave, to areas of outstanding natural beauty, to the national parks that are based on grassland and where sheep are often the farmer's only source of income.

Baroness Mallalieu: The subject matter of the amendment is of direct interest and concern to me because I farm in a very small way in a national park on Exmoor and also in an area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chilterns. I have sheep in both places, which move between the two. I also subscribe to the Exmoor Fox Hounds, which would be covered by the amendment. I have hunted with foot packs in the Lake District, which I understand to have been my noble friend's constituency.
	Because my noble friend supports a ban on hunting generally, I am very glad that he recognises that packs of hounds in his own area perform an important—indeed, an essential—task in relation to fox control and that they should continue to hunt. But I must tell him that the arguments, which have won his support in his area, apply just as strongly elsewhere.
	In the national park where I farm, which is exceptionally well-provided with fox hunting, predation, certainly in my direct experience in the past couple of years, has been largely kept under control by the hunt. I see foxes about all the time, but I have had few problems. As many noble Lords will know, whenever there is a difficulty, the huntsmen—whether in season or not—will go out specifically on a lambing call, taking a few hounds with him, to track down a rogue fox and to deal with it. He provides a service to farmers which goes far beyond the usual day's hunting with the meet on the village green. He is a working member of the countryside and is on call. He deals with difficulties on the farm in relation to fallen stock—which we will come to later—and with particular difficulties with foxes.
	Where I live in the Chilterns, hunting is much more problematic because of shooting interests, woodland, which is not used for shooting but has widespread public access, and the proximity of a motorway. In that area, I have serious fox predation problems, not only with sheep, but also particularly with poultry, which are out during the day but securely locked up at night. We regularly lose a substantial proportion of the flock each year. At one stage when we had particular fox difficulties, it was necessary to house young lambs for the first three weeks of their lives. Even then, I lost good, strong lambs.
	There is shooting in that area and there is wounding. Sadly, one sees the effect of that. On two occasions, foxes have come into the farm buildings to die, which, on examination, clearly have suffered for a considerable period of time. So my problem in the area of outstanding natural beauty is that there is not enough hunting. On Exmoor, the hunting works and works well.
	My sheep move from one area to another. Under the amendment, they would be protected on Exmoor, but would have none of that protection in Buckinghamshire. That is discriminatory in relation to the degree of protection that a farmer can give his animals in one area as opposed to another; what of the other areas just outside the national park or the areas of outstanding natural beauty which are not covered?
	Seven miles away from my farm in Buckinghamshire, just down the road in Oxfordshire, near Thame, I have a friend who has an outdoor pig farm. Such were the losses of piglets that he called the police believing that he was suffering the attentions of rustlers. When night cameras were set up and a watch was kept, the photographs showed clearly what was happening. Foxes were coming at night and, with a remarkable lack of noise, were taking piglets of a size which he could not have conceived to be capable of being taken and killed. The hearings at Portcullis House made it clear that there should be parity in the treatment of all the quarry species and all the areas of the country in the way in which the registration system applies.
	I know the Lake District. It is a particularly strong hunting community, as is Exmoor, where I come from. With an echo of my own experience, I listened to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said about his concerns for the well-being of some of those people for whom hunting is central to their lives. No one should understate the feeling of threat which they are under at the moment. However, I am concerned. The areas that my noble friend represented as a Member of Parliament are particularly strong in that respect. They played a remarkable role during the foot and mouth outbreak. I know that the staff of all those local hunts were extremely involved in the very unpleasant task of destroying animals belonging to their neighbours and friends, which they did with tact and in a manner which commanded the reassurance of those with whom they were dealing. That is something which must never be overlooked because they are the very people whom this measure is designed to put out of work.
	I have great sympathy with what my noble friend said. I wish I shared his optimism about the likelihood of the amendment being acceptable in another place. He knows much better than I how the other place works and the minds of those in it. From what I have seen and read of the debates, so far it seems that the actual arguments are no longer playing any part on the minds of those at the other end. What they want is a totemic victory, regardless of the cost in human or animal terms.
	However, let us assume that my noble friend is right. Perhaps I may try, with some temerity, to answer as best I can—if I am wrong, I hope that others will correct me—the question that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, raised about the Parliament Act. As I understand it, the Parliament Act could be applied not just to a Bill which is identical to that which left the Commons, it could incorporate amendments made in this House if the other place agrees with them subsequently. So there is scope for an amendment being included.
	I come back to what we are trying to do—at least I am trying to do—in Committee; that is, to reinstate the registration system which Alun Michael decided should apply, based on the evidence. He determined that that system should apply to all hunting. What I think we all want—I speak in so far as I can for the hunting community—is that best practice should be applied to all forms of hunting. There should be a proper form of regulation. There should be proper enforcement of the rule so that the public can have confidence that it is properly conducted. For that reason I am reluctant to see any forms of hunting or any areas of hunting taken outside that scheme. I should like to see the public having confidence that those rules and the new system apply everywhere and to all.
	If my noble friend presses the amendment, I cannot go into the Division Lobby with him. I feel that what he is doing does not lie with the registration scheme. But, I am bound to say, nor could I go into the Division Lobby against him and oppose something which, potentially, could have great significance for areas and for people who deserve support.

Lord Palmer: I, too, listened terribly carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said, particularly in reference to what will happen if, indeed, the Bill, having completed all the stages of parliamentary scrutiny, does go back to the Commons. I was rather impressed with what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said. Indeed, we all must bow to the much longer experience of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in another place. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that this, to some degree, is a last-ditch amendment.
	One of the most fundamental points about the amendment is that it emphasises the idiotic fact that here we are, yet again, talking about foxes. People outside the building simply cannot believe that we are banging on yet again and wasting so much parliamentary time. I also listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said. On balance, bearing in mind that more than 10 per cent of the land area of England and Wales is now part of a national park, I feel that if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, does press this to a Division, I shall have to support him.

Earl Peel: I find myself in something of a dilemma over the noble Lord's rather strange amendment. I applaud his concern for his former constituents and for those who live around him. I also suspect that the noble Lord will appreciate the great passion and love for hunting that will be so unfairly wrenched away from people in such areas, were this ludicrous Bill to become law. But, like my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I am bound to ask two questions: why have the national parks been specified and, indeed, why is the amendment directed specifically at sheep?
	I should have thought that, if a form of demarcation line was to be drawn, the "less-favoured area" line would be more appropriate because it would cover a wider area of similar farming conditions. On the question of sheep, it is true to say that sheep rearing is an absolute lifeline for those living and working in the upland areas, but what of piglets? I know of a farm in the North Yorkshire moors where I am sure that fox predation is a problem. What of game birds, which now play such an important part in local rural economies? Why should sheep be given special protection as opposed to ground-nesting birds? Why cannot the curlew and the golden plover—birds that are in decline in many of these areas—be afforded the same protection? There is a degree of inconsistency here which causes me real concern—and, of course, it is that lack of consistency throughout which is causing so many noble Lords difficulties with the Bill. Registration would appear to be the only sensible way forward.
	One further point is worthy of discussion. What are farmers in these areas to do if hunting is outlawed? What will happen in the Lake District, where lamping and shooting foxes at night is an impractical solution, not only because of people being present, but because of the very nature of the terrain? In many upland regions, in particular those managed for grouse, lamping is an option, although there are real concerns about the safety aspect of it now that the right to roam has reached the statute book. That is another problem which I do not believe that this Government have taken into account.
	As I have said, on many parts of the Lakes hills and in Wales, lamping is not an option and hunting is the only alternative. But, under the terms of the Bill, the only option open to a farmer in such conditions is to flush out a fox and shoot it, using no more than two dogs. However, anyone with even the remotest degree of common sense must realise that that is wholly and utterly impractical. Do we really expect farmers in the Lake District to go out with two dogs, ranging over those huge areas of land, in the hope that they might flush out and shoot a fox? Once again, in this Bill we are entering the world of "Fantasia".
	This issue also raises the question of the gun packs, a matter about which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, feels strongly. I am sure that we shall discuss it in great detail when we come to his amendment. If the gun packs and fell packs are removed by legislation, then I put this question to the Minister: what practical alternatives will there be for the control of foxes in those areas? Unless the Government can come forward with a practical solution, I say to them: think again, and think again fast. They are going to devastate—I repeat, devastate—the lives of people living and working in these areas.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: The amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, are, in my view, demonstrably illogical, unattractively pragmatic and self-evidently tendentious. For those reasons, in part, if I have the opportunity to give a view, I shall support them. I shall do so because it is better to have an unjust law that applies to only part of the country than to have an unjust law that applies to the whole of the country.
	That conclusion is not based on a logic which I have learnt from almost four years in your Lordships' House. In my time here I have come to appreciate debates in which decisions are reached largely on their merits, after listening to the arguments. The conclusion that I shall express, if given the opportunity to do so tonight, will be based rather on what I learnt, as it were, at the noble Lord's knee during my 14 years in the other place. That is a House in which, while sometimes one foot may be dragged down into the vortex of the usual channels, the remainder tries to grab hold of the best of what is left of one's energy into trying to achieve a just conclusion on the issue.
	It is, of course, completely illogical to suggest that sheep should be protected from foxes in Llanberis, but not in Llandinam, a place mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, when he referred to my close friend Lord Davies of Llandinam, whose hunt I have followed on foot, along with all those ordinary farmers and other people from far and wide who do not wear regalia or anything of that kind and who follow such hunts.
	If one looks at the boundaries of any national park, such as, for example, the Snowdonia National Park, one will find many pieces of land where the boundary actually goes through the middle of farmers' fields. This kind of amendment is, as I have said, self-evidently illogical.
	What I really want to say to noble Lords is this: if these amendments are agreed tonight, we should not send to the other place the message offered by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours; that is, that we will grab what we can while we can get it. Rather we should send to the other place the message that this House, while it may be prepared to support these amendments, does not support the grounds given; namely, those of expediency. We might send the clear message that we are asking the other place, for once, to apply the standards which are applied daily in this House; namely, the standards of listening to the arguments and judging an issue on its merits.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Both of these amendments are dedicated to the very worthy cause of protecting sheep, which is all-important for the reasons put forward by my noble friend Lord Kimball. Living, as I do, in the Conwy Valley on the edge of the Snowdonia National Park, in the middle of sheep-rearing country, I have great sympathy with the thrust of these amendments, although I cannot support them for reasons that will become obvious, and I prefer registration.
	The annual losses incurred by sheep farmers as a result of the onslaught of foxes on their flocks, in particular at lambing time, are staggering. The fox does not simply kill to eat but, as my noble friend pointed out earlier, he kills for kicks—or whatever is the proper term for the feral killer instinct.
	Among the many letters that I have received is one from Mr Ifor Evans, who runs the Aber Valley Hunt in my neighbourhood. That hunt is a farmers' gun pack with 12 and a half couple of Welsh hounds. They hunt on foot, usually over difficult terrain, and very hard work it must be. For myself, I cannot see much sport in it. Nevertheless, that hunt has already dispatched, within that small area of the Aber Valley, some 60 foxes—above the usual annual average of 50 foxes. I shall quote selectively from Mr Evans's letter:
	"One local family [whom I think I know] lost over a hundred lambs [this season] and the losses occurred between the busy A55 expressway and the Holyhead to London main railway line—an extremely dangerous situation to both man and hound".
	I know that stretch of land on the coastal fringe of the national park—land on which there are also protected badgers. Foxes, I am told, are crafty enough to use badger setts to earth in and gain extra protection. That creates another problem. This is where the hounds excel because they do not go underground. They leave the badgers alone and hunt foxes in the open.
	Mr Evans continued:
	"Another smallholder, a working man, in Betws-y-coed"—
	in the heart of the national park—
	"had the tremendous loss of 41 lambs this spring. All attempts made to catch the fox . . . by followers with shotguns, lamps and squeegers (giving a similar sound to a rabbit in distress) . . . were to no avail. The losses continued until finally a dog fox was flushed out by the hounds and shot on May 4th. The losses ceased, much to the relief of the farmer".
	That letter gives a cameo picture of the situation on the ground in at least one national park area which is almost entirely grazed by sheep for most of the year. The ewes are brought close to the home farm in the lowland at lambing time, but foxes are seldom far away and can cause extensive havoc in a single night. I have seen a fox on my lawn at home in August but my most surprising sighting was of a fox in the park keeper's garden by the lake in St James's park within 100 yards of Downing Street. The point is that foxes are not confined to specific locations, and that seems to me to be the fundamental defect of the amendments.
	The amendments imply that hunting with dogs should not be prohibited when it is undertaken to protect sheep in a variety of specified locations. Of course, all kinds of questions arise in that context, as we have heard. What happens when the fox is chased from the designated area? Does the hunt then become illegal and cease? Indeed, why should not sheep be protected against foxes wherever and whenever they are threatened?
	The amendments offer a crumb of comfort but I prefer the thrust of later amendments that seek to legitimise hunting to prevent damage to livestock. That such protection is necessary, especially so far as concerns sheep flocks, is beyond doubt in my experience. In my area, certainly, people do not keep poultry in the open because the danger of a fox kill has proved to be very real time and time again. The slaughter of lambs and the ravaging of ewes that try to protect their young against foxes is a very common occurrence in the lambing season.
	Thanks to a few expert fox hunters and their essential dogs, the numbers of foxes are kept within tolerable proportions. About 60 to 70 are shot every year in my own Rowen Valley but, like my noble friend Lord Peel, I dread to think what the situation will be like if the Bill becomes law and hunting with more than two dogs is prohibited.

Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I was initially attracted to the amendment. I endorse all the comments made by various Members of the Committee about the Ullswater Foxhounds, which is a foot pack that hunts in the Lake District National Park. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, these foot packs are often summoned during the lambing season by farmers who are perhaps being plagued by a rogue fox, which can do quite a lot of damage. Foxes can bite off the head of even a large lamb and carry it away, leaving behind the remainder of the lamb. This is wasteful and distressing to the shepherds. So the hunts provide a very good service.
	The use of dogs is widespread in rounding up sheep and moving them to new pastures and so on. From this has grown a sport. "One Man and His Dog" is a popular television programme. We allow this sport—we call it sheep dog trials—because it takes place using domesticated animals rather than wild animals. So that is all right. We have no idea what might be going on in the head of a sheep while it is being chased along. Does it think, "Oh, that's okay, it looks like the boss's sheep dog", or, "Scarper, ladies, it's that alsatian from the pub down the road"? We make these judgments to suit our purpose, and our purpose is livestock production—or, put another way, raising lambs to kill to eat.
	I said I was attracted initially to the amendment because of the protection it affords livestock. For every reason suggested by my noble friend Lord Peel, I understand that the land in national parks or other upland areas may increase the difficulty of fox control by all the other methods mentioned, but what reason can be given for distinguishing between a designated area and a non-designated area? Why do foxes gain protection from hunting by crossing a line on a map? If this is a last-ditch amendment, I view it as humbug and hypocrisy. If hunting is humane in the Lake District National Park, it is humane in Leicestershire. I cannot support the amendment.

Lord Mancroft: Like my noble friend, I, too, was attracted to the amendment initially. I fully understand the reasons of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for promoting such an amendment and bringing it forward. However, what concerns me most is finding a solution to this very difficult political problem, which has been served up to us by an incompetent government and an irresponsible House of Commons. What really matters is that we should try to solve this problem for all the people out there—some of whom I know very well—who are very distraught, sad, depressed and angry about what is going on. We owe it to the 400,000 who marched through London, if we possibly can, to find a solution.
	The Bill we were originally promised was to have been based on principle. Although when it finally arrived in the House of Commons it was a little hard to find out exactly what those principles were—they were enmeshed in expedience, as are so many government Bills—they were there. As we know, principle was removed from the Bill before it arrived here. Last week, in moving the amendments to put back into the Bill the registration process, we were attempting to find a principled solution to this extremely difficult and unpleasant problem.
	I completely understand what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, seeks to do by moving the amendment. He has told the Committee that he is not in favour of hunting—that he opposes it—but that he recognises the issues it raises for his former constituents. I cannot help wondering whether Mr Banks would have felt the same if he had been standing for a seat in the Lake District rather than in East London. It would have been rather helpful for us to know, I suspect.
	The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raises a number of points with his amendments. He recognises, as other noble Lords have pointed out, that hunting with dogs plays a significant role in fox management for sheep farmers. In his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, raised questions about the amount of predation that sheep farmers suffer. There is a question mark over this issue—there always has been—but the old Ministry of Agriculture, now Defra, has always accepted that there is a problem. It has been recognised that the amount of predation of lambs is usually around 2 or 3 per cent. That seems a very small figure until one realises that it represents about 300,000 lambs every year—a rather larger figure if you happen to be a sheep farmer. So that issue is worth taking into account, and I will say it again: hunting with dogs plays a significant role in fox management for sheep farmers. The evidence on which the Bill was supposedly based found that as well, although the Government may be tempted to forget that today.
	The noble Lord also changed his amendment from an earlier draft with regard to permitting the use of dogs. My noble friend Lord Peel said the idea of hunting with one dog was completely ludicrous. To tell the honest truth, hunting with two is not much better. The idea that people devise the hunting of foxes, deer and hares with packs of hounds because it is better and more amusing to have 20, 30 or 40 rather than two is ludicrous. The reality is that you cannot hunt foxes with two hounds. It is not a sensible thing to do—most importantly, it is not a humane thing to do. Nevertheless, the amendment recognises that dogs are needed. When the noble Lord winds up this little debate, I would be interested to know how many dogs he had in mind.
	There is again the issue of why sheep should be protected in one part of the country and not another. Why should calves, piglets and other livestock not be protected? It is important to realise that, as more and more pigs are reared outdoors, the level of predation of piglets by foxes will rise considerably. People have been pressing to reform the way in which pigs are farmed in this country, by getting them out of the iron pens and stys and out into the fields, which is very much nicer for the pig. It does, however, mean that there are very much higher levels of fox predation. So there are swings and roundabouts with all these issues.
	The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raises very interesting points. He accepts principles of fox management that the Government appear to have forgotten—the House of Commons has certainly forgotten them. The problem is that by accepting an amendment like this, we possibly deny ourselves any chance of finding a real, long-term and principled solution to the very difficult question raised by the Bill. Therefore, with the deepest regret, I am afraid I shall not be able to support the noble Lord if he divides the Committee.

The Duke of Montrose: We have debated the interests of sheep and a number of other types of livestock quite extensively around the Committee. I begin by declaring an interest as someone who, like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, owns sheep and lives in a national park—the only difference being that the park I live in is in Scotland. Noble Lords will understand how, subjectively, I must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for tabling these amendments. I can perhaps understand the limitations he has placed on their effect.
	The noble Lord drew to our attention the speech made by my noble friend Lord Jopling at Second Reading in which he described a most telling case. Unfortunately, my noble friend is unable to be in his place today, and he has asked me to remind your Lordships about the Plas Machynlleth hounds and how one of the huntsmen of the hounds had to be recalled during the Second World War because the foxes got so out of control that they were threatening food production in the area.
	When my noble friend Lord Mancroft mentioned statistics, he was no doubt thinking of those provided in the Burns report, which were taken from studies carried out by the Game Conservancy Trust and other bodies. The studies looked first at lambing in mid-Wales and then at lambing in the whole of England and Wales, not necessarily in national park areas. Burns drew out that the percentage of losses is greatly influenced by the number of sheep that are lambed indoors. He quoted a rate of loss of 0.6 per cent in mid-Wales and a best estimate of less than 2 per cent for England and Wales together. This has perhaps given the impression that, in general, it is not a very serious problem for sheep production. However, he added the rider that the effect of the loss on the individual farmer will vary, depending on his or her circumstances. Most of the circumstances that have been described today have involved people lambing out of doors.
	I expect it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that in the recent Scottish legislation, the use of dogs in the control of foxes, particularly underground, has been allowed as a general rule because the legislators in Scotland were impressed by the importance of this kind of control for sheep farming. Like the Lake District farmer whom the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, mentioned, I should like to share some of my practical experience, which is in slight contrast to the more general statistics provided by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison.
	It so happens that this spring, there was a period when I was not able to have someone controlling foxes in my area. I had 40 ewes running in a couple of fields next to the open hill. In the first 10 days, the shepherd lost between 10 and 15 lambs to foxes. This is a man who knows every one of his sheep individually. In the main, healthy lambs, seen with their mothers last thing at night, were not there in the morning. Does the Minister consider that the shepherd's trauma was limited because nobody was there to witness the lambs being killed? This represents about 25 to 30 per cent of the lambs we would expect from these ewes. Our impression was that it tailed off only because the man further up the hill started lambing by the end of this time so the foxes moved on to pastures new, as they will do.
	I have more ewes whose lambs were not affected to this extent so, overall, it was not a disaster of the proportions that it might first have appeared. But perhaps this serves as an illustration of what happens in particular areas at particular times if one or more foxes in a sensitive area escape the most effective method of control available. We will come back to this issue later when we debate a number of amendments on the use of dogs underground.
	In the mean time, my difficulty with this amendment is that, like a number of other noble Lords, I know that a lot of sheep and livestock do not reside in a national park, and we have before us a Bill which is now to be based on registration. This will allow rational decisions based on individual areas across the country, and it will allow those making the judgment to tailor their decisions on the threats that actually exist.

Lord Whitty: I shall speak in this debate very briefly. If I am slightly more benign towards my noble friend's amendment than I am to some others which are before us today, it is not because I agree with it but because he, at least, shows some consideration of the fact that the Bill before us, from the House of Commons, has a structure, and his amendment is geared to that structure. Most of the other amendments before us would effectively delete that structure and replace it with something entirely different.
	It is therefore important to recognise that my noble friend's amendment could sensibly be considered by the House of Commons within the structure of the Bill originally before us. It could, with some tweaking—some significant tweaking—also be considered in the context of registration, which was agreed in earlier proceedings, although it would not be appropriate to do it in precisely this form.
	As to the substance of the proposition, the protection of sheep, particularly in upland areas, was considered as a separate issue when the Government were discussing the Bill at previous stages. Because there were fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting with dogs in other areas, this may not be appropriate in all upland areas, particularly the more remote upland areas, most of which are within national parks. It was therefore suggested that some sort of exemption should be provided there.
	On the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Harrison indicated, much of this is for flushing out, and the Burns report recognises that the welfare of foxes could be affected adversely unless dogs could be used at least to flush out foxes from cover in upland areas. That, therefore, is a different situation from that which prevails in the rest of the country where, in the estimation of the majority of the House of Commons and the Government in both the original Bill and the Bill which is now before us—or was before us—in most circumstances there will be less cruel methods of conducting the control of foxes. In the upland areas, there is an argument that that might not be so, but most of those could be covered by the exemption in the Bill for flushing out, as my noble friend Lord Harrison suggested.

Earl Peel: What evidence does the Minister have, either from Burns or Portcullis House, that hunting is actually crueller than other methods? That is what he is implying.

Lord Whitty: We have discussed that at great length, as we have discussed many amendments at great length. I am not prepared to respond to that question, as I have responded to it in various forms at various stages. Those who supported the Bill originally before this Chamber strongly felt that the cruelty was greater in relation to fox hunting with hounds than in other circumstances. That may not apply in some areas, and it is reasonable therefore that my noble friend should ask the Committee and, subsequently, the House of Commons, to consider whether a further exemption might be necessary.
	I do not believe there to be an overwhelming case for that, although I believe that the Committee should consider it. If this Chamber supported it, the House of Commons should consider it—whether by way of the amendment introduced by my noble friend on grounds for defence, or by the method proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, in Amendment No. 100, which would add to the exemptions and which we shall reach later. Both those amendments respect the original structure of the Bill, which can be adapted.
	I do not believe that the case has been made, and I am not therefore prepared to advise acceptance of the amendment. All that I am saying is that the discussion is somewhat different from some that will come, where the amendments would in effect construct an entirely different Bill from the one sent us by the Commons.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I thank the Committee for the serious and frank way in which it has considered my amendment. I shall comment briefly on the observations made by those noble Lords who have spoken.
	I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, who was wise enough to acknowledge that under my amendment at least one bit of hunting would be preserved. Those were his words. I thank my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for his balanced contribution and his use of the correspondence. I thank, too, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for his recognition that this is a last-ditch attempt. That is precisely what it is.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord King, for his reference to the dangers from the use of high-speed rifles and for his irony; the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for bringing to the debate his great knowledge of the countryside; and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his good eye in recognising the gradation of the three amendments. I am afraid that I cannot cede to his request to press Amendment No. 27, as it would be amended in the way he wants. In doing so, I believe that what left this Chamber would not be taken seriously by the House of Commons.
	I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who referred, in the absence of my reference, to the services provided by the hunt, especially during the period of foot and mouth. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for his understanding of the position in the national parks, coming as he does from the north of England. I fully understand the dilemma faced by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, who does not want to compromise the principle of registration, which is the position taken by a number of Members on his side of the Committee who are wavering on the amendment.
	I have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for his colourful combination of irony and sarcasm, which I so often enjoyed listening to when he was a Member in another place. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, felt unable to support my amendment. I would ask him to recognise that I am putting to the Committee tonight only what I believe to be credible in the other place. I am being as frank as I can; that is my objective.
	I am afraid that I have to reject the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, who described my amendment as "humbug". Oh, that we could have perfection and consistency in all legislation! I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for at least understanding the problems.
	My noble friend the Minister referred to his contribution in response as benign, and I took it in that way. However, in light of the debate, and because there are many people in the Lakeland and in the national park in Wales who are watching what happens during our proceedings this evening, I now wish to test the will of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 68.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]

Lord Boston of Faversham: We come to Amendment No. 27A. It follows that that is not moved, I take it.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: In the circumstances, and with regret, it is not moved.

Lord Boston of Faversham: It is pre-empted in any event. Thank you very much.

[Amendment No. 27A not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: In moving that Clause 5 shall not stand part of the Bill, I speak also to Amendment No. 101 to which I have put my name and which is consequential. I should also declare an interest as a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Conservation and Wildlife, which has some relevance to this debate.
	In the run-up to Mr Michael Foster's Bill, in 1997, I asked Lord Cranbrook, the then chairman of English Nature, for a bibliography on the fox which I then pursued comprehensively. I cannot claim a similar prolonged background on the hare, although I have had a love affair with the species since I was a schoolboy. One of the principal reasons that Durer was my favourite painter in my early teens was his enchanting painting of a hare.
	The only hunting I have ever done in my life was a brief spell of beagling in County Down when I was a Minister there. I never recall our killing a hare, but I had to desist when the Irish Times revealed that I was doing it, as hunt sabotage in the Province could have carried extreme personal overtones.
	My wife and I live on the edge of a woodlanded sheep farm in Wiltshire which has hares in profusion for almost daily observation. I once picked up a newly dead leveret in a field yards from our cottage. Your Lordships' House will know that hares, in giving birth, drop their young in open fields. I have rarely held in my hands anything more beautiful.
	One of the ironies of hare coursing, which this clause is about, is that it is the mirror image of Aesop's fable of the tortoise and the hare. In the hare coursing version, the greyhounds play the hare and it is the cunning and skill of the tortoise that enables the vast majority of the real hares to survive unscathed.
	The fundamental argument in favour of dropping Clause 5—which was of course also in the original Bill—from this Bill was the consistent advice at the Portcullis House hearings that all species should be given parity of treatment. Those views were underpinned by the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, at the same hearings, which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, quoted last Tuesday (col. 1507 of the Official Report). He said that,
	"the bulk of the concerns the Burns Report raised about hunting might be addressed through licensing, a regulatory approach or by changing the rules of the hunts".
	The consequence of dropping Clause 5 from the Bill would be to allow applications in respect of coursing to be made to the registrar in common with the other currently lawful forms of hunting. The registrar would then decide, assuming other amendments to the Bill are subsequently carried, if the application passed the twin tests of utility and least suffering. If it did so, a licence could be granted. If it failed in either respect, it would not.
	The opposition to Clause 5 standing part of the Bill does not of itself permit coursing, or even support it, except vicariously. It returns the Bill to the state of affairs pertaining at the Portcullis House hearings.
	Ministers can scarcely say that they have explained why they resisted the Portcullis House advice, nor was any evidence adduced or produced at Defra's hunting consultations to show that these activities should be banned. Mr Alun Michael, in charge of the Bill in another place, said on Second Reading of the original Bill that hare coursing was indefensible. I have no grounds for supposing that he raised his voice, and therefore did not follow the advice of a Latin American delegate at the United Nations whose text was marked in the margin "weak point, shout", but the use of a categorical word such as "indefensible" in the light of centuries of coursing is probably hazardous from the lips of a Minister who said Professor Bateson's evidence on stag hunting was "incontrovertible" when even Professor Bateson himself would not dream of making such a claim.
	In the debate on coursing in Committee in the other place on 13th February, the Minister, Mr Michael, got himself into a massive semantic tangle about the difference between dogs hunting and humans hunting with dogs in language worthy of Alice Through the Looking Glass. More precisely, all coursing is hunting but not all hunting is coursing. If, however, the Minister really believes that coursing is indefensible and that his case, to borrow a word at random, is incontrovertible, why does he not leave it to the registrar to determine the matter and leave the intellectual honesty of the Portcullis House hearings intact? Competitive coursing, which the Burns inquiry said was essentially carried out for recreational purposes, also falls into the same category as shooting or fishing, which are not to be banned, with all the attendant environmental and species management benefits which apply.
	I am not going to enter the detailed argument about coursing and its practices because in doing so I should be going beyond my own articulation of why Clause 5 should be dropped from the Bill, but possibly others in your Lordships' House may be less prone to self-restraint, including even possibly the Minister. I appreciate that there may be future points to which I should respond when I wind up the debate.
	In the mean time, I should like to pay tribute to the way in which the National Coursing Club, which was founded in 1858, has responded to each one of the reports that were produced in the past 50 years of the 20th century. Whether it was the Scott Henderson report of 1951—I remark parenthetically that the eponymous author appointed by a Labour Home Secretary who gave his name to that report was coincidentally a resident of the village of Sutton Mandeville from which I take my title—or the admirable Stable and Stuttard review of coursing of 1971 (now a rare volume but still immensely worth reading), or the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the hare Bill of 1976, or the Burns inquiry of 2000, the National Coursing Club has always responded positively and constructively to the recommendations of each report, including five specific changes to practice since the Burns report was published; and the number of hares killed during hare coursing has fallen precipitously over the past quarter of a century.
	From the narrative I can see no reason why that responsiveness will not be maintained, not least because of the praise lavished on the National Coursing Club for the exceptional tightness of its regulations. I shall also quote a single sentence from the Lords Select Committee report of 1976 which states that,
	"the welfare of the hare would not be appreciably affected by it [the hare Bill] since the amount of physical suffering caused by competitive coursing is probably less than 1 per cent of the amount caused by hare shooting and non-competitive coursing".
	As to stewardship of the countryside, which I regard as contributing to biodiversity, and thus indirectly to the Government's Rio target of doubling the brown hare population by 2010, there is similar praise for the conservationist practices of the estates where competitive coursing occurs. The Minister will be aware of the significant article in the much respected magazine, Nature, on 29th May this year by four researchers of the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology at the University of Kent on the notable beneficial effects of field sports on conservation in the UK.
	I shall close with three further quotations. The first illustrates the hazards of governments interfering with our ecosystem. In 1896 the Reverend H A Macpherson in a book entitled The Hare, lamented the passage of what he called the mischievous and uncalled for legislation of Sir William Harcourt's Ground Game Act of 1880—ground game being hares and rabbits. Mr Macpherson wrote:
	"A great change has taken place in the numbers of hares that are annually bred in England. Go where you may, one meets almost universally with the same lament, that where you would formerly have seen 20 or 30 hares feeding in the fields on a summer evening, you will now hardly see a single animal".
	That was written 16 years after the passage of the Act. This dirge was despite the reactive and recuperative alternative legislation, the Hare Preservation Act, which was introduced in the summer of 1892 in order to rectify matters.
	My second quotation is from the Lords Select Committee of 1976 which stated:
	"It has been argued that public opinion is increasingly opposed to coursing matches. The Committee point out however that if those canvassed by the societies—"
	those were the animal welfare societies—
	"are as ignorant of the facts as members of the Committee were before the inquiry, the value of the statement must be considered debatable".
	Finally, and most briefly, but with all the directness of Yorkshire, I quote the verdict of a farmer in that county who takes considerable care with the preservation of hares on his land who said, "If they ban coursing, the hares will have to look out for themselves".

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I hope that in the space of two or three minutes I may be able to persuade some Members of the Committee at least why Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill and why hare coursing is a practice that needs to be outlawed.
	I remind the Committee that the original decision to outlaw hare coursing was taken in the House of Commons as long ago as 1970, and it is a measure that has been the subject of Private Members' legislation which has been approved in the other place on numerous occasions since. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, rightly pointed out, even in the Government's original Bill introduced by Mr Michael, hare coursing was described as an "indefensible" activity and would have disappeared.
	It was interesting that the noble Lord chose not to describe exactly what happens at hare coursing meetings. When one studies what happens at those events, one finds it almost impossible to believe that there can be any grounds whatever for allowing it to continue. It is an activity—I refuse to use the word "sport" in relation to it—whose purpose is to give pleasure to bystanders by giving them the opportunity to watch a beautiful animal, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, rightly said, being subjected to a gruesome and agonising death. The animal in question, the brown hare, is the subject of a biodiversity action plan, the aim of which is to maintain and expand their population following a huge decline in their numbers over the past century largely as a result of intensive methods of farming.
	The Burns report—I am astonished that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, should have quoted the Burns report in evidence—concluded that,
	"there is little or no need to control overall hare numbers".
	It also stated that,
	"hare hunting and coursing are essentially carried out for recreational purposes".
	Hare hunting is covered by Clause 1 of the Bill and we do not need to concern ourselves with that now.
	Clause 5 deals with hare coursing events. These involve the setting of two dogs, usually lurchers or greyhounds, on a single hare. The season for hare coursing runs from September to March, which means that the season does not end until after the first litters are born. Hares may be heavily pregnant or nursing when coursed, and the leverets obviously die if their mother is killed.
	Competition coursing is funded largely by gambling, and watched by spectators in a coursing arena. The hares are beaten on to a field where handlers are holding the dogs. The hare gets a head start before the dogs are released. As the dogs are bred for speed, they catch up with the hare in seconds. The only chance the hare has of escaping is by turning sharply. It sometimes happens that the two dogs catch the hare simultaneously and then there is a tug of war with the hare in the jaws of both animals. That goes on until the picker-up gets on to the scene and removes the hare, which may still be alive but in intense agony. The officials then try to break the hare's neck, but do not always succeed the first time.
	The RSPCA engaged the services of an independent vet to examine the corpses of five hares killed during the 2001 Millennium Cup coursing event. He found that none had died instantly from a bite. The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare carried out 53 post-mortems on coursed hares. None of those had been killed by a bite to the neck. The research commissioned by the Burns committee found that, out of 12 coursed hares, only one was definitely killed by the dogs. Of the remaining 11, five were killed only after the picker-up arrived and broke their necks. In the other six cases, the cause of death was uncertain.
	The Waterloo Cup is the highlight of the hare-coursing year. It is held near Southport in February, on the Altcar estate of Lord Leverhulme. It is an area where the number of native hares has been declining since the 1970s, so the organisers have to round up hares in other parts of the country, with Norfolk being the favourite county from which to take them. That increases the cruelty, because hares are confused in unfamiliar territory. When hunted, they tend to run in a large circle in fields that they know.
	One courser at the Waterloo Cup this year spoke to the Daily Mirror after the experience. He said:
	"It's not illegal but it is immoral. One day I sat down and thought about it and I just couldn't do it any more.
	The captured hares are released on to land that is unfamiliar to them, they don't have any runs and they're so scared it's impossible for them to find an escape route. It's like me being taken from my house, blindfolded, driven a hundred miles away and then dumped, being chased".
	How can any decent, civilised person argue that that is a sport worth preserving?

The Earl of Caithness: I am very grateful to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, because a lot of what he said was emotional and, unusually for him, wrong. If he cares to look at the evidence—there is plenty of it—he will see that the picture is not as he painted it.
	We are on a totally different argument from that on fox hunting. The fox is a predator, whereas the hare is probably one of nature's most complete prey animals, but we are still talking about hunting. It is also wise for me to declare my non-interest. I do not have any land. I have been hare coursing once. I have not been fox hunting; I tried once to see what it was like, but I was fogged off so I never got there. As I shall explain, I take a very different view about hare coursing from my view a year ago.
	There are two types of what one might call chasing hares. The first is uncontrolled. I have witnessed that in Scotland. It is not a pretty sight—for the hare or for the poor farmer, who is terrified by the mobs that drive on to his land in 4x4 vehicles. Their idea is actually to cause damage and catch the hare. If one looks at controlled coursing by the National Coursing Club, a very different picture emerges. In 116 A.D., Flavius Arianus said:
	"The true sportsman does not take out his dogs to destroy the hares, but for the sake of the course . . . and is glad if the hare escapes".
	Unlike chasing hares in an uncontrolled manner, the intention is not to kill the hare. No points are awarded in a hare course for killing the hare, and there is great joy for everyone when the hare escapes. As notified in the Burns inquiry, the average course is something like 40 seconds out of the hare's lifespan of three to four years.
	Coursing has won every argument, be it on fear, terror, suffering or preservation of the hare, or conservation, diversity or biodiversity. However, it is still persecuted. It is the most investigated country sport. As my noble friend Lord Brooke reminded the Committee, there have been four reports on it since the Second World War. It is the most controlled. The National Coursing Club implements very strict rules on hare coursing, and it has accepted all the recommendations made by the four reports since the war, most notably and recently that by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. It also has an inspector on site who is on the side of the hare and is able to stop coursing meetings—he has done so in the past—if he feels that, for any reason, the hare might be at an unfair disadvantage.
	Coursing is the most misunderstood country sport. My noble friend Lord Brooke quoted, as I would have, the point made by the Select Committee of this House, which felt that it was totally ignorant of the subject before it began to try to understand it. I, too, would have put myself in that position. That was why I went to a hare-coursing meeting. This time last year, I would not have opposed the Question. I believed some of the hype and emotion in the press and on some television programmes. The more I have looked at properly controlled hare coursing, the more I understand its benefits and that it is not as people have portrayed.
	Controlled hare coursing brings enormous benefits to both the hare and the countryside. Man is not the only predator of the hare but the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, did not mention any others. He mentioned that the hare might be pregnant. The hare might be pregnant in May, June or July when the fox does the chasing, or when the mother fox might teach the young foxes what to do. If any Members of the Committee have seen that, they will know that it is nastier, more vicious and inflicts more suffering on the hare than any controlled coursing could.
	Man does a huge amount to protect the hare in the areas in which controlled coursing takes place. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, is, unusually for him, wrong in saying that hares are transported to hare-coursing meetings and do not know the lie of the land. It is perfectly true that in some parts of the country hares were brought in to restock, but the coursing did not take place until the hares had grown accustomed to that land and the area in which they were.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Is the noble Earl not aware that, in 1997, the League Against Cruel Sports filmed hares being netted on an estate in East Anglia, an activity supervised by the chairman of the Waterloo Cup, which was taking place only two weeks afterwards?

The Earl of Caithness: There has been evidence of some of that. Where anything like that has happened in the past, huge attempts have been made to rectify it. The situation that the noble Lord presents is thoroughly overplayed.

Lord Mancroft: I am not sure whether my noble friend is aware that the allegations by the League Against Cruel Sports were examined by the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and were found not to be correct.

The Earl of Caithness: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that, which goes to prove my original contention that a lot of the argument, most unusually for the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, was emotion rather than fact.
	Hare coursing can be justified, but that is not the point of the debate. The point of the removal of Clause 5 is to treat hunting on a level and fair basis. What applies to one wild mammal should apply to all wild mammals. If hare coursing is permitted and there is a regulator, I strongly believe that it will be a deterrent for those who course in a manner that is not controlled. That is the activity on which we should focus our attention.

Baroness Mallalieu: I, too, oppose the Question whether Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. If one could identify a point at which the Government's Hunting Bill began to run to difficulties, it would appear to be the moment when Mr Alun Michael departed from the principles and the evidence that had been established during his consultation period. He had heard from all sides that whatever direction his proposed legislation were to take, all animals and all forms of hunting should receive the same treatment; in other words, all forms of hunting should be prohibited or all forms should be capable of registration if they could pass the tests that were set. It seems, however, that he took a political decision at that stage to exclude coursing, presumably because he thought that he would be unable to sell that to another place. He said that coursing could never pass the tests, so the registrar should not be entrusted with any applications.
	Mr Michael also took a decision about rabbits. He said that the registrar should not be bothered with applications concerning them either, because rabbits would always pass the tests. His intellectual dilemma is now as follows: chasing and perhaps killing a hare with a dog or dogs cannot ever pass the twin tests of utility and least suffering and so must be banned, but chasing and perhaps killing a rabbit with a dog will always pass the twin tests, so must always be permitted. How can that possibly be right when, for rabbits, terriers are used often which are much smaller and less powerful than the larger greyhounds, lurchers and salukis?
	The intellectual nonsense of the debate has been highlighted by Sir Mark Prescott, a leading racehorse trainer and a keen supporter of coursing, who with others gave a superb presentation to noble Lords. He asked:
	"How many MPs can tell a hare from a rabbit? Almost none. How many policemen can tell a hare from a rabbit? Very few. How many dogs can tell a hare from a rabbit? Not a single one".
	My opposition to the Question whether Clause 5 should stand part does not reflect a pro-coursing or anti-coursing position. It does not water down the Bill. It applies, as the Minister promised, the principles and the evidence drawn from the consultation process and it allows coursing to be considered by the registrar against the same twin tests as the other forms of hunting. If the information which was so passionately presented by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is right, coursing will fail one or both of the tests. If coursing does not perform a useful task, as utility is defined in the Bill, or if it cannot pass the test of least suffering, no registration will be granted.
	My own position is as follows: I like hares; I like to see them about and I would like to see their population increase, not decrease. That is the very object of the Biodiversity Action Plan. I do not like illegal poaching. I am aware that in some areas, gangs of people with their dogs, chasing hares on other people's land without permission, are not just a serious nuisance, but sometimes a cause of real fear and difficulties in the locality. I am also well aware that their activities have proved virtually impossible to police. I do not want to see the activities of such people increasing—quite the opposite.
	I own a lurcher that enjoys rough coursing around the farm, with or without human company. A group of friends sometimes gets together—with, I stress, permission—to walk around the farm with their dogs in what is effectively the equivalent of rough shooting. Any rabbit or occasional hare caught is then taken and eaten later by those present. That is not organised coursing of the kind which the clause is intended to prohibit. Although that activity does not amount to a hare-coursing event as defined in the Bill, it would be required—and rightly, if one accepts the principle of the Bill—to be licensed and registered.
	I have attended a hare-coursing event, organised by the National Coursing Club. It has already been referred to. It took place in 2001, near Newmarket, and it was held over three days to celebrate the Millennium. I did not know what I was going to find. It was a superb occasion. One could not have seen a wider section of the community present. There were people who owned a number of dogs and had them professionally trained; there were people who owned one dog or even just the leg of a dog in a syndicate and trained it themselves; there were men with tattoos; there were people of every age and there was substantial ethnic representation. It may surprise some noble Lords that coursing is a popular activity in India and Pakistan. So from all backgrounds and all ages the spectators came.
	The skill of the hares was breathtaking, as was that of the greyhounds involved in the coursing. The proportion of killed to courses, as I understand it, is some one to eight; in other words, for every eight courses, only one hare is killed. We are debating in this Chamber an activity that kills just 200 hares in a year.
	Initially, I found the argument for coursing difficult to follow, but it became more persuasive during the presentation of Sir Mark Prescott. In speaking about the speed of kills, to which reference has just been made, he said that the longest time that those who oppose coursing have ever claimed that it took for a hare to be killed was some 40 seconds. He added that if you were standing and watching, that would seem interminable and I am sure that he is right. However, he also asked which of us, given the choice, either for ourselves or someone we cared about, of a good life, followed by just 40 seconds of suffering at the end, would not say, "I'm for that. Give me that". I suspect that few noble Lords will have the good fortune to suffer for such a short period when their time comes. The kills that I saw, which were very few, were rapid.
	It was particularly telling that, as I left the meeting, I saw hares which had already been coursed grazing in a field immediately beyond the course. That was within a short time of them having been coursed.
	I saw no one take pleasure in the few kills that did take place. I saw considerable anger at a small group of demonstrators on the opposite side of the field, who, by their activities, frightened hares away from crops that had been grown there to give them an escape route and who, in one case, caused a death which would not otherwise have happened.
	What is our purpose in opposing the Question whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill? Is it wrong that people should go to watch an activity that may lead to the death of an animal? In no way do I wish to be thought to be attacking racing, but many more racehorses are killed every year on the race courses of this country than are hares by coursing. The Bill would make it an offence even to go to watch a hare-coursing event. I need not be involved with a dog or anything of that kind. If I simply go along to watch, I shall be committing an offence. Are we to make it a criminal offence to watch David Attenborough's programmes on television, where impala, gazelles and zebras are coursed, pulled down and eaten alive night after night with literally hundreds of thousands of people watching and where, in many cases, the death of the animal takes a great deal longer than 40 seconds?
	We are talking about some 23 greyhound clubs. There are other lurcher clubs and clubs which practise coursing with salukis and deerhounds. Every year, approximately 16,000 people enjoy the biggest event in the organised coursing calendar—the Waterloo Cup. I pause to say that the seasons have been shortened over and over again in order to comply with recommendations, as has the slip or the distance at which the greyhounds must remain behind the hare. All that has changed. Whenever recommendations have been made following an inquiry, the coursing community has responded by doing what has been suggested. As I said, the biggest event—the Waterloo Cup—is attended by 16,000 people every year.
	What would be the result of a ban on coursing? In the words of one of my noble friends—he is not in his place at the moment—who spoke in the debate on foxes, it would do the hare no favours. Research carried out by coursing organisations indicates that on estates where there are currently large numbers of hares and where coursing takes place, it is very likely that a substantial number of hares—the published research indicates some 30,000—would be shot for the very good reason that, without coursing, poachers would move into those areas.
	Interestingly, a ban would also remove the one effective way of policing at least some of the illegal poaching—that is, it would remove the legal hare coursers, who operate under the rules and obtain permission and warn off those who do not do so. Therefore, without question, not only would one increase the number of areas in which illegal poachers would move but one would remove the very people who can be effective in stopping them.
	There would also be a vast increase in hare shooting because such shooting is lucrative. There is a great demand for it from, in particular, people from the Continent. In a single day of hare shooting, several hundred animals can be killed. At the presentation attended by those of us fortunate enough to do so, I asked about the wounding rates relating to the shooting of hares. Research, which I am sure we shall discuss later, has recently been carried out on fox-wounding rates. Hares are an even smaller target. Dr Douglas Wise of Cambridge University said that, in his view, the wounding rate for the shooting of hares was some 24 per cent and, of those, some 10 per cent were not picked up. Coursing leaves no wounded animals. They are grazing in the next field or they are dead. A ban on hare coursing would lead to a drastic reduction in hare numbers—the very opposite of what the biodiversity scheme seeks to achieve—and an increase in suffering caused by wounding.
	If I am wrong and if my noble friend Lord Faulkner is right in his description, those who apply to the registrar for licences to go hare coursing will fail the tests of utility or of not suffering cruelty. If that is right, no licences will be granted. From what I have seen, personally I believe that hare coursing can, in some places, pass both tests. But, if I am wrong, as I said, the registrar will simply refuse the application.
	Therefore, removing the clause from the Bill would reinstate the principle of fairness. I hope that those who have reservations about hare coursing, together with those who, like my noble friend, have made up their minds very firmly the other way and those who, like me, feel that it has an important part to play in conserving and, indeed, encouraging the hare population, will, on that basis, find it possible to support our opposition to Clause 5.

Lord Eden of Winton: I believe I am right in saying that during the course of the Second Reading debate the Minister did not particularly defend the retention of Clause 5 in the Bill. I hope that I do not do him an injustice in saying that. Therefore, I hope that, when he comes to reply from the Front Bench, he will take the opportunity of this short debate to make clear the reasoning for the clause being in the Bill. In doing so, perhaps he will say to what extent he is supported in his case by the evidence submitted at Portcullis House and elsewhere. I believe that, in our consideration of the Bill, it matters a great deal to some of us to know how far the clause is backed by those who are most concerned about the protection of wild mammals and their conservation. That is the point of my interest in this clause.
	I turn to the Burns report. Paragraph 7.21 refers to the Game Conservancy Trust. It states:
	"The Game Conservancy Trust found . . . that coursing estates had made or retained habitats which benefited hares, for example areas of grass instead of cereal and root crops; that they had prohibited organised shooting; and that they had taken active steps to protect hares from predation and poaching".
	It so happens that the other day I met a landowner who had followed the precepts outlined in that quotation. At one time, he suffered a serious decline in the hare population on his land, which he attributed very much to illicit coursing and poaching. I strongly agree that coursing needs to be controlled, regulated and registered. The activity on his land was taking place without his consent and it was clearly totally wrong. The result—particularly as a consequence of the poaching which took place—was the decimation of the hare population on his estate.
	Noble Lords who have seen hares know that there is something particularly beautiful and exciting about seeing a wild hare. I am sure that everyone in this Chamber wishes to see the hare population increase rather than reduce. It happens to be the case that where regulated, controlled, licensed or authorised hare coursing occurs, the hare population increases.
	The friend—the landowner—to whom I referred gave me chapter and verse on that very point. As a result of authorising and controlling coursing, the poaching has ceased. The same people participate at the coursing but the hare population on his estate has increased substantially. That must be something that noble Lords opposite want to achieve as much as I do. It is one reason that, for the moment, I believe that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will go out of his way, if he can, to corroborate his justification for it with the evidence that was produced in his support.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I disagree strongly with those who oppose the Question whether Clause 5 stand part. I am sorry that those who have spoken in support of that position saw fit to do so in a spirit of a win-lose situation. I feel strongly that there is a case for hunting to continue where utility is proved. However, I do not believe that utility is likely ever to be proved in the case of hares.
	Here, we are considering the inability to compromise. If we want to see hunting continue in some form, we shall have to accept some compromises. Indeed, the hunting of hares is not a compromise. I believe that it is wrong. One point on which I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken is that hares are beautiful and do not deserve to be hunted. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, who has been widely quoted, states that there is no need to control overall hare numbers. Other noble Lords have said that he makes the point that they are a biodiversity action plan species and a ban would have little effect in practice on agriculture or other interests.
	I do not believe that hares are comparable to rabbits. There are enormous numbers of rabbits, which, therefore, can be classed as pests. I do not think that hares are in that class.

Lord Tebbit: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she saying that rare animals suffer less pain or more pain than common animals? It seems to be a rather curious point of view that the degree of pain and therefore whether or not we should prohibit hunting depends on the number of animals there are. Perhaps the noble Baroness would tell me whether she is happy for me to continue shooting hares.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I do not think that I have yet advanced an argument either way, although I shall address that point when I come to it.
	I believe it is also wrong that all mammals should be subject to registration. Some years ago both Houses of Parliament decided to remove otters from the list of species which could be hunted. No one is saying now that we should hunt otters again, even if that is not seen to be cruel. They are recognised as a species which should not be hunted. I believe that hares fall into the same category as otters as being a species which people are pleased to see in the countryside.
	I would ask those opposing the Question that Clause 5 stand part to give serious thought to the fact that the public are largely with them when they say that they do not want a ban on all forms of hunting. Indeed, I do not want a ban on fox hunting. However, there are limits to what the public will find acceptable. We see that 59 per cent oppose a ban on hunting. When I ask members of the public how they feel about the hunting issue—I receive many letters on the subject—they are strongly in favour of not banning fox hunting but almost to a person do not want to see hares hunted.
	The argument that just because a lot of illegal coursing takes place we should continue to support legal coursing does not hold water. We should continue to clamp down on illegal coursing. I hope that those opposing the Question that Clause 5 stand part will bear in mind that by pressing it, if that is what they choose to do, they will largely lose the sympathy of the public.

Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may make an observation. I am not a follower of hare coursing. Indeed, I have never been to a hare coursing event so I am in no position to speak about it. I admire the advocacy of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who made an extraordinarily robust and acceptable defence of hare coursing.
	I am concerned about Clause 5 and what it does. I can understand the Government saying, "We don't want hare coursing. Therefore, it shall be an offence knowingly to facilitate a hare coursing event". It is an offence to permit one's land to be used for the purposes of a hare coursing event, so that stops people using their land. It is wrong for a person to participate in a hare coursing event. Presumably that means that he must not bring his dogs or ensure that the hares will run into the right place. If all that worked there would be no hare coursing.
	However, to my mind the coup de grace comes in subsection (1)(b) which states that it is an offence to attend a hare coursing event. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, why should it be an offence to attend an event? If one sees an event taking place, of course one stops and looks. Everyone knows that the world is full of ghouls and if an aeroplane crashes one cannot get along the roads because everyone is stopping and looking. It is not an offence to be present when a burglar burgles a shop, if one happens to be there. It is not an offence to witness someone throwing a brick into a window, but it is an offence to watch someone's dog chasing a hare.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. It is an offence to attend a cock-fight because cock-fighting is illegal.

Earl Ferrers: I dare say that it is but the point I make is that if hare coursing is made illegal, it should not be a requirement to tell people that they cannot attend. What I find offensive is the Government telling people what they must and must not do, particularly when it comes to people's sport and preferences. When communism was at its height we used to worry a lot and people used to say, "Big Brother is watching you". Big Brother is watching you and telling you what to do now. I think that that is deeply offensive. That is why I do not like Clause 5 and why I hope that it will go.

Lord Best: The question for us to consider is whether or not coursing is so different and so beyond the pale that it should be banned even if other forms of hunting are allowed. Is it such an awful sport that there can be no argument but that coursing should be prohibited in all circumstances?
	I have had absolutely nothing to do with coursing in my life but I went to see two coursing events in North Yorkshire not far from where I live to discover what it is all about. I went with some trepidation because I am as squeamish as I guess many noble Lords are. The thought of two greyhounds tearing a hare apart was fairly difficult to imagine. My last similar experience was to witness bullfighting in rather too much gory detail on Spanish television. I found that appalling and was totally disgusted by it.
	Nevertheless, I steeled myself and went to visit these two coursing events and watched the morning's proceedings. I have to tell Members of the Committee that on those two consecutive occasions, to my astonishment no hare was killed. No one was distressed by that. It turned out that the whole purpose was not to kill a hare. Indeed, no points are awarded if the hare is killed. It does happen and I am sure that it is the case, that some 200 hares are killed per year. Apparently some 20,000 are killed on the roads, but the coursing events that now happen under very strict regulation are not about killing hares. I did not appreciate that and I rather suspect that a great many members of the general public do not appreciate that coursing is not about killing these animals. I saw eight pairs of greyhounds being let go to chase the hare. In 16 races between the two greyhounds no hare was killed. I thought that noble Lords would be interested to hear that one example.
	That led me to question the sport, if that is what it is, of watching and following greyhounds performing in this way. It is certainly magical to watch. These are very sleek and wonderful dogs. Set in glorious countryside, one can think of very few things that are more pleasurable than standing as I did on a sunny day watching people from all walks of life enjoying themselves. This seemed to me to be a very simple and honourable pastime and not one associated with cruelty, at least in the events that I witnessed.
	Is it useful in any way? Utility is the other test. Is it so obvious that it is not useful that it should be banned even if other forms of hunting through a registration and licensing scheme are allowed? It seems that it is useful in the conservation of the countryside. People who enjoy this activity ensure that the woodlands and countryside are in a state that is welcoming to the hare population. As noble Lords have said, hare populations tend to multiply where coursing takes place. It seems to have a beneficial effect on the countryside.
	On other interests, I found it useful in the sense that this was a community activity. People came from, I suspect, rather lonely farm lifestyles to participate, to bring their own dogs, which were sometimes nothing to do with the event, and just to share the experience with others. It gathered people together from a wide area of rather remote countryside in north Yorkshire that seemed to me to be useful in a communal and social sense.
	So, without prejudging how a registration or licensing system would determine whether coursing should be allowed, I came to the very firm conclusion that it is not self-evident that the cruelty or lack of utility are so obvious in the case of coursing that this clause should stand and that a ban should apply irrespective of whether it applies to any other form of hunting.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, with great respect. I acknowledge that this is a much more difficult issue than the one we debated earlier today. It is more difficult because one side can be argued with even more—perhaps a great deal more—passion than we heard in support of the Bill earlier today. A very good example of that was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. His speech, if I may say so, represented the high water mark of the passionate case against hare coursing—the high water mark perhaps after a very high spring tide; and none the worse for that.
	Equally, we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and of course earlier we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, the less passionate but possibly more cerebral case. I oppose the question because I think that Clause 5 is too widely drawn. I am satisfied that the law at the moment on hare coursing is exactly as it should be. The clause is too widely drawn in prohibiting it altogether.
	I should like to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Best, by quoting—and I can do so very briefly as the points have been argued so well on both sides—from personal experience, which I admit at once is slight on my side. In the mid-1970s I was a new Member of Parliament. Once again the legality of hare coursing was a public issue. I was perfectly happy about hunting with dogs—as one must call it—because I knew something about that, but I knew nothing about hare coursing. I had many anxieties about hare coursing.
	So I took myself to a meeting on Romney Marsh of the Jack Jones coursing club, which is one of the oldest coursing clubs in the country. I went incognito. I have to say to noble Lords that I did not find much problem about that. I watched to see what happened. I was completely reassured. There was a long line of followers or supporters in the form of a gentle crescent. At each end a greyhound was held on a leash. The line moved slowly forward across the great marsh meadows. When a hare jumped up and had a lead of some 75 or 100 yards, the greyhounds were loosed at each end and off they went.
	Noble Lords have said very clearly—and with much better access to it than I can describe—what the purpose of coursing is. It is not to kill the hare; it is to judge the agility of the hounds as the hare jigs. The hare was killed on one occasion out of many courses. I was very glad to find that the purpose was not to kill the hare. I came away feeling very reassured. I thought it was proportionate, fair and, as I say, the hare nearly always won.
	I must be frank with the Committee, I have not been coursing again. However, from the arguments today—and I have listened with care and great sympathy to both sides—I certainly am not persuaded that the law should be changed so that no one else should ever go coursing again.

Lord Hoyle: I am totally opposed to Clause 5 being deleted. I want to return to something that I said last Tuesday. I said, amid protestations from the other side, that the idea was not to return the Alun Michael Bill to the Commons. Indeed, that has been proved today because far from that—the noble Lord shakes his head—the noble Lord is seeking to delete one of the main clauses from the Bill that was introduced by Alun Michael. So it is not the Alun Michael Bill. It is being added to, despite warnings from noble Lords on the other side, in particular from the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, who said: "I support hunting generally but I do not support hare coursing because it is cruel; it affects a beautiful animal".
	Pest control cannot be used in support of the issue. This is not about pest control. It is about a sporting activity that I believe should have been banned long ago.
	I want to make one other comment. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said that in 1997 the League Against Cruel Sports spotted hares being netted on an estate in East Anglia. One of the people supervising the exercise was David Midwich, the chairman of the Waterloo Cup—hare coursing's premier event—which was taking place two weeks later. I understood him to say that the Burns report had disproved that. I will willingly sit down if he can show me where Burns even examined that.

Lord Mancroft: I would love to, but I do not have the Burns report with me.

A noble Lord: I will pass it over.

Lord Mancroft: That is very kind of the noble Lord. I will look and check and come back to the noble Lord on that.

Lord Hoyle: The noble Lord will not find the matter because it was not even examined by Burns. So, if we are going to make statements in the Chamber, there should at least be some clarity and legality about what we are saying.
	I do not want to take up a great deal of the Committee's time in relation to the matter. I think it would be wrong to bring it back. But I want to quote what the Burns report had to say on hare coursing. The report stated:
	"We are similarly satisfied that being pursued, caught and killed by dogs during coursing seriously compromises the welfare of the hare. It is clear, moreover, that, if the dog or dogs catch the hare, they do not always kill it quickly. There can also sometimes be a significant delay in 'driven coursing', before the 'picker up' reaches the hare and dispatches it (if it is not already dead). In the case of 'walked up' coursing, the delay is likely to be even longer".
	I stand by that. I am sorry to see an attempt being made to bring back such barbarity when at least the Alun Michael Bill was seeking to get rid of it.

Earl Peel: The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has shown quite clearly that there are those who support the principles of fox hunting, some who take an ambivalent view and some who, like the noble Baroness, oppose the notion of hare coursing. I can fully understand her view. It seems to me that, from the outset, the common strand that any animal welfare Bill should contain is consistency. To discriminate against a rabbit in favour of a hare, or a rat in favour of a stoat, displays quite clearly the inconsistency that exists within this piece of legislation.
	The noble Baroness said that hares are beautiful and should not be hunted. Any child reading The Wind in the Willows may come to the conclusion that a rat should not be killed. So I suggest that that is an illogical and rather dangerous precedent on which to base the legislation that we are discussing today.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: To be clear, in The Wind in the Willows it was a water rat and not a common land rat.

Earl Peel: But the same principle applies, whether we are discussing the water rat or the ordinary domestic rat. The same principles of consistency must apply throughout legislation; that is my point.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: It is a serious point: one is a pest and one is not. A hare is not proven to be a pest in the way that a fox is. A rat is a pest; a water rat is not. That is my point, which is serious.

Earl Peel: I do not want to enter a debate with the noble Baroness about whether a hare is a pest, but I can think of a number of farmers in East Anglia who regard the hare as being a considerable pest. However, that is another issue.
	One difficulty that we face when dealing with legislation concerning animals is that we fall into the trap of substituting human thought processes and emotions for the instinctive way in which an animal will react. Furthermore, there is the additional trap of assuming that wild animals will respond in a similar fashion to the domestic pets with whom we share our lives. Those are misleading and dangerous assumptions that can lead only to misguided actions in how man carries out his responsibilities—they are responsibilities—of management of habitats and their associated species.
	That is not to say that we should not show the highest respect for all that we manage, including all pest and quarry species, but we must not abandon reality. It is against that need for consistency—coupled, I must say, with the lack of evidence—that I can see no justification for not subjecting coursing to the same registration process as fox or, indeed, hare hunting. I therefore urge those who have supported the principle of registration to do so again and not discriminate against coursing. If we believe in registration, allow the registrar to consider the facts and reach proper conclusions.
	As an aside, I am bound to say that as for so-called cruelty, I cannot distinguish between the hare being killed by a dog and by a fox. Does the hare feel some sense of betrayal by being killed by a dog rather than a fox? I hardly think so.

Lord Hoyle: The difference surely is that the fox is a predator, whereas the dog is being set on the hare by a person.

Earl Peel: I can quite see the distinction, but I am discussing the act of cruelty. Is it more unfair on the hare to be killed by a fox than by a dog? I suggest not.
	Of course, other Members of the Committee have raised other important issues. One is the correlation between hare coursing—and, indeed, all field sports—and the creation, retention and management of habitats that are such a benefit to a whole range of other species. We have heard many quotations from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, this evening; perhaps I may cite him again:
	"In the case of the hare . . . a ban might lead farmers and landowners to pay less attention to encouraging hare numbers. The loss of habitat suitable for hares could have serious consequences for a number of birds and other animals".
	But that principle cuts right the way across the countryside and applies to all field sports. It is important that we should not forget that habitat and species management often comes at no cost to the taxpayer.
	Finally, I mention illegal coursing, as have several Members of the Committee. The problem is that it is not simply against the law but indiscriminate. Most people who course are highly sensible to the number of hares and take animals only when a cull is appropriate and populations have reached a point at which they need to be controlled. Get rid of coursing and the men with the long dogs will simply rub their hands in glee. That could have a serious effect on the biodiversity action plan for the hare.
	I finish on what I regard as a salutary note. I know that in County Durham the police have now admitted that they have virtually washed their hands of dealing with poaching offences. I am certain that that will spread to other counties. Get rid of hare coursing and indiscriminate poaching with long dogs will increase, to the detriment of the hare population.

The Earl of Onslow: I want to say only one small thing. It has been established beyond peradventure that when man hunts, he protects his quarry species. The fact that big game hunting in Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe, when it is not in total chaos—

Lord Addington: How many times in our history have we hunted to extinction?

The Earl of Onslow: There was the quagga in South Africa, I quite agree, but what I know to be true is that where there are big game farms for shooting in South Africa and other African countries, there is a sustainable quantity of the quarry species. Where quarry species are properly managed, which involves private property, private rights and so forth, the quarry species thrives.
	Those of us who indulge in field sports know that if we want to go fox hunting, we want to find a fox to hunt. If we want to go coursing, there must be a hare to course. If we want to go grey-legged partridge shooting, someone must have gone to enormous expense, time and trouble to preserve grey-legged partridges.
	All I suggest is that when we think about how to deal with quarry species, we do not get over-influenced by long floppy ears and beautiful paintings by Durer, because the hare looks so much prettier than anything else. It is a quarry species; it is part of what the Church used to call the animal kingdom. For that reason, it is our duty to look after and preserve it. I suggest that sensible and well managed sporting and hunting maintains quarry species, which is what we should all want to do.
	To ban coursing just to save the lives of 200 hares but to put at risk those of a lot more seems to me the wrong way round. I have gone hare coursing only once with my godfather and his long dog, when we wanted a jugged hare for lunch. It was great fun catching it and even better eating it.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I oppose the Question but I speak as a recent convert to that point of view. I take seriously what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I might have made a similar speech a year ago, although without his passion and eloquence. I also take seriously what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. She told the House that public opinion would not support a similar attitude towards coursing as, by and large, it would towards fox hunting. The Committee will have to weigh that argument in deciding on the matter.
	A year ago, I would have taken the view that hare coursing was self-evidently wrong and should be banned. It has been part of my slow, painful and rather shameful education to have found out enough about coursing to know that, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and others have said, it is not as the public generally understands it to be. There is a huge amount of ignorance, but I see no reason why coursing should not be subject to the same conditions as fox hunting, or that the decision should not be made by the registrar.
	I speak as a convert. I hope and believe that if the same principle were to apply to hare coursing as to fox hunting, the general public would come to understand it—as the great majority of the public has come to understand a great deal more about fox hunting than it knew five years ago. I oppose the Question; I hope that the Committee will also do so.

Viscount Ullswater: I ought to declare an interest, because my wife is a member of a coursing club in East Anglia. I have therefore attended a number of coursing events. I must start by saying that the coursing events to which I have been, which are whippet coursing, bear no relation whatever to those described by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. There is no crowd; there is a single line of people with their dogs. There is no driven game; it is all walked up. There is no betting; there are no people such as that.
	What the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, described, happens—certainly at the Waterloo Cup and other venues—but much coursing happens in a simple way, which is a competition between two dogs. They may be whippets, salukis, greyhounds or deerhounds; there are various sorts of clubs. The noble Lord, Lord Best, gave the other view by describing his recent experience of what happens when coursing. It would be wrong if Members of the Committee listened only to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and took that view of what coursing is all about.
	The Game Conservancy Trust says that on estates where coursing is practised hare stocks are maintained at some of the highest levels in the country. My contention is that coursing plays an important part in hare conservation. Recent surveys suggest that there is a wintering population of some 800,000 hares, and the Biodiversity Action Plan suggests that by 2010 our countryside should support at least 2 million animals in winter.
	I have turned to the Burns report to see what it says about hare and animal welfare. It quotes from the report of a House of Lords Select Committee that examined a coursing Bill in 1976—it was also referred to by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. I shall quote from a part of the report that I do not believe he cited. It concluded that,
	"the total physical suffering caused by coursing matches is negligible compared with the suffering of hares wounded by shooting".
	The Burns report concludes at paragraph 6.69:
	"In the event of a ban on hunting and coursing hares, it seems likely that a few more would be shot than at present. There are concerns about the welfare implications of shooting hares because of wounding rates".
	That is not a ringing endorsement for the most common method of hare control used at present—shooting.
	As Members of the Committee know, coursing clubs have their strict rules. The few hares caught are usually caught extremely quickly, and the number caught has been demonstrated as being very low. Why single out coursing for special treatment in Clause 5?
	The Government have ratified the UN 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, which urges signatories to,
	"respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity".
	I started by saying that, where coursing is practised, the number of hares is at some of the highest levels in the country. The Government should support the practices of local communities and recognise that hare coursing plays a useful role in the Biodiversity Action Plan.

Baroness Byford: I shall explain briefly my own views. I have never been to a hare coursing event. Had the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford not said what he said, I would have said it. I was very sceptical about hare coursing until I went to the presentation. I feel much more confident in organisers' ability and the thinking behind the way in which they organise coursing events.
	I was grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he introduced the debate. It is perhaps the most controversial and difficult issue that Members of the Committee face today, as has been explained by other noble Lords who spoke. We are asking the Government to treat this clause in the same way as they treat other parts of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked whether it was so bad, and why it should be considered differently. I agree. The House of Lords Select Committee, which has been referred to several times, has said that hares suffer less than they would as a result of shooting.
	The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, made a very impassioned speech. I understand that it is a very impassioned debate, as it is the one about which people feel strongest. My noble friend Lord Peel stole my thunder, but I repeat the Burns report's conclusion that,
	"in the case of the hare, on those estates which favour hare coursing or hunting, rather than shooting, a ban might"—
	I use the word "might"—
	"lead farmers and landowners to pay less attention to encouraging hare numbers. The loss of habitat suitable for hares could have serious consequences for a number of birds and other animals".
	Many views have been put forward today. I hope that it has been made clear that we are talking about legal hare coursing, not illegal hare coursing, which we have sometimes debated at length in the House of Lords. We are all against illegal hare coursing, and the sooner it is stopped the better. We are talking about organised legal coursing. We must decide whether we oppose the Question that Clause 5 stand part and believe that hare coursing should be treated in the same way as other areas of hunting. In my view, that is what we should do. I will support my noble friend.

Baroness Strange: I did not mean to stand up, but I could not resist doing so. I went coursing often as a child. Unlike my noble friend Lord Faulkner, I have never been unlucky enough to see a hare killed. However, I admired how the hares ran and very much admired the dogs. The question is that of killing hares. We all love hares. But should we not ban cars? We once found a hare that had been run over on the road and had its back leg badly broken. We took it home, amputated its back leg, kept it in a box of hay for two weeks and then released it. It was perfectly all right. Three years later, we saw the same hare, with three legs, perfectly happy and feeding all right. I am very worried about cars. I do not think that we should ban cars, as they are very useful, but that is part of the argument.

Lord Whitty: My first point is technical. Some Members of the Committee, latterly the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, have said that all they are trying to do is to put hare coursing events on the same basis as everything else. That is not what the deletion of the clause would do. It would leave hare coursing totally unregulated—in an area where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, there is huge public anxiety about such events.
	As the Bill now stands, if we go for a registration system, hare hunting falls under Clause 1. Sometimes the term "coursing" is used for informal hare hunting. This clause is about organised hare coursing events, the purpose of which is to test the skill of dogs, not pest control or conservation. It is defined in Clause 5 as,
	"a competition in which dogs are, by the use of live hares, assessed as to skill in hunting hares".
	It is true that the main purpose is not to kill the hare, but frequently it is killed. The whole point of the event is to bet or otherwise compare the skills of dogs in chasing a hare. In terms of the registration system, that has no utility in pest control, and I would dispute whether it has any utility whatever in conservation. The Biodiversity Action Plan for the hare in no sense depends on hare coursing being maintained.
	The technical point is that if the clause is deleted, there will be no regulation. It is not treating hare coursing differently from everything else. Hare coursing events will not be covered by the registration on which we voted last week; they will be excluded. Yet it is an area of huge public anxiety.

Lord Mancroft: Will the noble Lord explain that again? Why would it not be covered by the registration system as so much else is?

Lord Whitty: It is not hunting. If you go out over your farm with dogs chasing hares, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, described, that is hunting and falls under Clause 1. But an event where one simply compares the skill of dogs is not hunting under the definition of Clause 1 or any dictionary definition. It will therefore fall without Clause 1.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: With great respect, the noble Lord is wrong. In the Government's own words, hare coursing is hunting. He should look at the penultimate word in Clause 5(3).

Lord Whitty: We are talking about the dog's skill not the person's skill. We are making illegal what people do, not what dogs do.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: With respect to the Minister, does hare coursing involve "hunting hares"—the words used by the Government in Clause 5(3)—or not? If not, why is it in subsection (3)?

Lord Whitty: The long title of this Bill refers to hunting with dogs, meaning people hunting with dogs. In that context, we are talking about dogs chasing hares, not people hunting with dogs. We are not making action by dogs illegal in any of this; we are making action by people illegal. Hare coursing does not fall under Clause 1 by all the legal advice that I have sought. I suggest that noble Lords seek their own legal advice and I am sure that people involved in hare coursing events will also consult lawyers. If noble Lords delete this clause, there will be no control on what is regarded by many people as a pernicious sporting event.

Lord Mancroft: I am most grateful. If I could help the Minister a little, I suspect that what has happened is what some of us rather felt would happen when this Bill was first published. Suddenly, out of the woodwork, the Government's legal advisers have decided, after goodness knows how many years, that coursing is not hunting. Therefore, it needs a separate definition. It is prohibited in the long title of the Bill because it could not be covered by hunting. That is odd, because it was perfectly happily covered by hunting in all the Private Member's Bills throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
	It would not be right to describe this person as a rogue lawyer, which would be rather unfortunate, but it appears that we have got into a muddle because of the Government's legal advice. Everybody else thinks that coursing is hunting and because the Government are so hooked on the idea of the competition, that is where the problem lies. Welfare is the most significant thing that we are all worried about, and the two protagonists that do not know that hare coursing is a competition are the hare and the dog.

Lord Whitty: I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that, on all occasions that hare coursing has been discussed in another place or here, the legal advice has been that hare coursing events of the type that we describe and define in Clause 5 are not hunting. This is not a sudden back-pocket intervention by the Government's legal advisers.

Lord Mancroft: That is the very point: it is a hare coursing event. Clause 5 refers not to hare coursing but to hare coursing events. All the rest of the hare coursing in this world—99 per cent that is not an event and not organised in the way described in Clause 5—will continue. It is pointless.

Lord Whitty: No. If someone is hunting over hills with dogs and that person is hunting hare, that is hunting under Clause 1. That is why we need a separate provision in relation to organised hare coursing events. Members of the Committee who wish to treat this in the same way as everything else under the registration system would need to put down an amendment that enabled that. However, simple deletion of the clause would not achieve that. It leaves such events totally unregulated.

Viscount Bledisloe: Does the Minister agree that, if his rather esoteric interpretation of the Bill is right—or even if it might be right—the matter could easily be put right at the next stage by including hare coursing in Clause 1 by a simple amendment? It is obvious that everyone who has spoken intends and wishes it to be regulated. Even if the Minister fears that there is a slight risk that his interpretation is right, it would be incredibly easy to remedy the matter and get hare coursing controlled and regulated in the way that we want at the next stage.

Lord Whitty: The noble Viscount is an eminent and distinguished lawyer. Nevertheless, over decades of legal advice, the burden has been to support my interpretation. Of course, if we delete this clause it is always open to Members of the Committee to table an alternative amendment at a later stage. However, as of tonight, what Members of the Committee will be doing is leaving hare coursing events totally unregulated under this Bill, not treating them the same as other forms of what everybody accepts is hunting.
	My second point is frankly a heavier one. As my noble friend Lord Hoyle indicated, this clause—word for word— was in the original Bill presented to the House of Commons. Committee Members have tabled amendments and argued in this House that they want the Government and the House of Commons to go back to the original Bill and start again. They say that they are rejecting the last stages of the Bill in the House of Commons and the decision on Report to move to a complete ban. If they delete this clause, we are on course to reveal a degree of deceit and hypocrisy in that approach.
	When we come to other amendments, it will be even clearer that it is not true that the mainstream amendments before us tonight are trying to return to the original so-called Alun Michael Bill—the original government Bill—but to go way beyond it. They would dilute it beyond recognition and remove from regulation many forms of hunting. They would exempt a whole swathe of what the original Bill was intended to cover. Such a story might as well be abandoned here and now if members of the Committee vote to delete this clause.
	You are crossing the line if you delete this clause. Your argument that all the Government need do is to return to its original position falls if you delete this clause. By all means, this House has the right to do that, but Members of the Committee should recognise what they are doing.

Baroness Byford: I challenge the Minister on that point. Last Tuesday, we voted to alter the Bill as it was, so it is already an altered Bill.

Lord Whitty: It is an altered Bill, but the main alteration was, broadly speaking, back to the form of the original Bill. By passing Amendment No. 3, we effectively returned to the basis of the registration system under the original Bill. That is not the case under the amendments coming before us after dinner and I will make the same points when we debate them. A vote in favour of deleting the clause would be crossing the line. Members of the Committee will be abandoning any pretence that they are asking this House and the House of Commons to go back to the original Bill. That will no longer be true.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, but if my memory serves me right—I do not have my copy of Hansard with me—the amendment that we agreed in my name last week featured the words, "knowingly permits", which were not in the original Alun Michael Bill at all.

Lord Whitty: I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. Clearly, there was another amendment that was rather misguided but did not destroy the basis of the Bill. It was a small amendment defining offences. I suspect that the Commons, even if it accepted the argument about going back to the original Bill, would wish to alter it. I certainly would. However, the amendment did not destroy the basis of the Bill. Deleting the clause does destroy a significant part of the basis of the Bill. I repeat: Members of the Committee are crossing the line if they delete this clause.
	The substance of the issue—

Lord Mancroft: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way, I do not wish to interrupt and I am sorry if I am slowing up proceedings. It is our intention to return to the original Bill—it always has been—but with a number of exceptions. We have always said that and we stick to it today. We want those exceptions because we believe that certain areas of the Bill abandon principles that the Government and the Minister identified at the start of this process.
	If the Minister is so convinced that hare coursing is appalling, it will not pass the registration process at the heart of this Bill. The whole purpose of this Bill is to have a registration process that is fair and takes these activities out of the hotbed of political argument. It is as simple as that. To assume that an activity that affects 160 hares a year and 5,000 people at the most is destroying the centre of the Bill is really ludicrous. It is not true. All we want to do is go back to the original principles. It is perfectly reasonable, perfectly justified and pretty easy to explain.

Lord Whitty: I have explained and will explain on subsequent amendments how that argument is a complete travesty of where the noble Viscount is coming from. Under the cover of purporting to return to the original Bill, the Bill that would result were we to pass all these amendments would be a complete distortion of the original Bill. In that context, it is not as simple as that. If we delete the clause, it will not mean that hare coursing will be subject to the same tests by the registrar as everything else; it will be subject to no such assessment. That is why I argue strongly against the deletion of the clause.
	There are ways in which, at a later stage, the noble Lord could change the Bill, but deletion of the clause now would delete all regulation of hare coursing and, therefore, significantly change the original Bill. I ask noble Lords not to do it.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: The Question is—

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I assume that I am entitled to reply to the debate. I apologise to the Chair. It has been an excellent debate, and I thank everybody who took part in it. It has been good humoured.
	If I single out the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, it is because he constituted the major opposition to deleting the clause prior to the Minister's speech. The noble Lord said that people gathered to watch an animal subjected to an agonising death. When journalists ask if they may take pictures, the National Coursing Club takes them to the top of the course. If the journalists ask why they have been taken there, it is explained to them that, if a death is to occur, that is where it will occur. The reason that the crowd is so far away, not watching the death, is that it has come to see the skill of the greyhounds and the hare in competitive coursing.
	The noble Lord said that I omitted to refer to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, had indicated that there was no conservationist plus to be had from hare coursing in terms of numbers. I did not say that. First, hare coursing is not engaged in for that purpose, and, secondly, it would have been wrong for me to contradict, in a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, when I believe him to be right. Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, said that the hare coursing season went from September to March. I am not a lawyer, but there is a touch of suggestio falsi in that. The season starts on 1st October and ends on 28th February. I mean no disservice or disbelief, but the noble Lord was pushing it a bit with that observation.
	My noble friend Lord Ullswater referred to the disappearance of the bookies from hare coursing and, thus, the disappearance, effectively, of gambling. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, said that the autopsies that had been done on five hares indicated that none of them died as a result of a bite. That is not surprising, as it is not how hares die in hare coursing. They are hit by a greyhound that is much heavier than they are and is going at extreme speed. As somebody once remarked, it is like a Reliant motor car being hit by a truck. I am not suggesting that that is not a painful process, but it is not the process that the noble Lord described. That applies also to the remarks that he made about hares being found in the jaws of both animals. It might apply to a dead hare, but it would not apply to a live one.
	My noble friend Lord Caithness dealt with the rules that the National Coursing Club has about movements. My noble friend Lord Mancroft dealt with the subsequent allegation from the League Against Cruel Sports.

Lord Hoyle: I challenged the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to produce the evidence, and he could not. I do not want that to be repeated.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My very good friend the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, will wait. I was saying that that matter would be determined outside the Chamber, rather than inside it tonight. Before the noble Lord becomes too supportive of the League Against Cruel Sports, I must say that, in a recent advertisement, it said that hares that survive the experience die of exhaustion. That was taken to the Advertising Standards Authority, which found it unsubstantiated and ordered the League Against Cruel Sports not to repeat it. The noble Lord must be careful about the quality of at least some of the evidence that he quotes.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: The noble Lord corrected something that I said about the season for coursing. Paragraph 2.54 of the Burns report says:
	"Coursing by registered clubs takes place from 15 September to 10 March".

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am happy to take that intervention from the noble Lord. However, he did not pay attention to what I said. The National Coursing Club has changed its rules in five respects since the Burns report, and that is one of them. I acknowledge what the Burns report said, but the up-to-date situation is different.
	I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for their support. They put more eloquently the things that I might have said, if I had not subjected myself to a degree of self-restraint at the beginning of the debate.
	To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I must say that approximately 200,000 acres are used by the coursing clubs on coursing estates. Since the Burns report, the National Coursing Club has carried out an investigation of the consequences of ending coursing. The figures from Dr Wise that were quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, are accurate. It looks as though ending coursing would lead to the shooting of 30,000 hares on those 200,000 acres. That is an area four times the size of Birmingham. I acknowledge that, according to Dr Wise, only one quarter are not shot cleanly and that only 10 per cent are not then picked up by gundogs. However, that still leaves 720 hares that will die an extremely painful death in order for the noble Baroness to stop 220 deaths by hare coursing, almost all of which happen instantaneously.
	I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, on his personal initiative and his exceptionally objective speech. I also congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who went to similar trouble.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, has already been engaged in a degree of disagreement. I will not carry that further, except to say again that I never said that the issue was one of pest control. The noble Lord said that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, had said that the process,
	"seriously compromises the welfare of the hare".
	The noble Lord, Lord Burns, has since said that he regrets using those words because he did not have a basis of scientific certainty for saying them. He did not know one way or the other.
	I thank my noble friend Lord Peel. I also thank my noble friend Lord Onslow, from the heart of the countryside, for the common sense of his observations, even though he found fault with my championship of Durer. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, who joined the noble Lord, Lord Best, as a thoughtful convert. I thank my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, for winding up the debate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft responded to the first point that the Minister made. In my opening speech, I said that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, had emphasised the recreational purposes of hare coursing and that, therefore, it fell into the same category as shooting and fishing. It is curious that shooting and fishing are fcoutside the Bill, while hare coursing has been put in, unless that is because coursing has always been linked with hunting in all previous Bills.
	The Minister said that we would cross a Rubicon if we deleted the clause. However, as I said, the Minister in the Commons said that hare coursing was indefensible, whereas any number of Members of the Committee have shown in eloquent speeches that it is defensible.
	I shall end with Dr Stoddart's evidence to the Lords Select Committee. He was giving evidence as a witness for the RSPCA, which he advised. His evidence has not been specifically refuted since 1976. Incidentally, I hope that the quotation will repair my standing with my noble friend Lord Onslow. Dr Stoddart said:
	"The hare is a prey species, that is to say it has evolved with the capacity to move with great speed and to escape from its predators by that means and by jinking. Its flight is a natural instinctive and behavioural response; it is, in fact, a normal state of affairs.
	"Just as it is biologically necessary for an animal to heed the warnings of physical pain, so also it is biologically necessary that an animal of a prey species should not suffer psychologically by being chased. "If an animal did so suffer, its capacity to escape would be impaired and the species would risk elimination by a process of natural selection. In addition to these considerations, it must be observed that an animal of a prey species like a hare has also evolved the capacity to instinctively resume, very quickly after the chase is over, exactly what it was doing before the chase began".
	On the basis of the debate, I believe that a majority of the Committee wishes the matter to be put to the test, and I therefore ask that it should be.

On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 129.

Resolved in the negative, and Clause 5 disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before two minutes past nine.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Thurrock Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 2003

Lord Rooker: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the order was approved by the other place on 15th October. If approved today, it will establish an urban development area coterminous with Thurrock council's administrative boundary and an urban development corporation to regenerate it.
	The Sustainable Communities Plan identified the crucial role that the Thames Gateway will play in regenerating existing communities, accommodating new homes and providing new jobs. On 30th July, the Deputy Prime Minister announced five priority areas in the Thames Gateway; Thurrock is one of those areas. We are now putting in place the appropriate delivery mechanisms to ensure co-ordinated and timely progress.
	As I have said, the urban development corporation boundary will be coterminous with the borough boundary. This would provide the UDC with the flexibility to consider development opportunities across the borough, to create new settlements and to improve the sustainability of existing communities. It would also enable the UDC to undertake a detailed appraisal of current land use within the borough and to develop strategic proposals for regeneration, housing and economic development.
	Within the proposal, housing, commercial and industrial growth would be focused predominantly, but not exclusively, on brownfield land south of the A13. The UDC would operate in line with the development principles established within Thurrock council's local plan as this relates to the protection of the green belt.
	It is the Government's intention to place an order to give the Thurrock UDC powers to determine large-scale and strategic planning applications. Such a transfer would not change the nature of those powers, nor would it lessen the transparency of the planning process. The UDC would be subject to the same obligations as any other planning authority.
	Responses to the consultation on the Thurrock UDC were received from individuals, the voluntary sector, the private sector, local authorities, non-governmental organisations and government agencies. Around half of all respondents, including Thurrock council, explicitly expressed support for the proposals. No respondents stated an opposition to the principle of establishing an urban development corporation in Thurrock. I therefore commend the order to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved. [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I can see that the Minister has taken to heart the recommendation that 10 minutes should be allotted to this order. Perhaps I may slow the procedure down for a moment. As the Minister said, this matter was raised in the Sustainable Communities Plan. The Thames Gateway has been identified as a part of that plan, and Thurrock is an important element.
	It has been clear for a number of years that this part of southern England requires attention and therefore there is no objection to the principle of what is being proposed. As always, however, any concerns there may be lie in the practical application of what is to be done. That has raised a few questions which I should like to put to the Minister.
	The boundaries of the UDC are to be the boundaries of Thurrock council. As the Minister mentioned, those include a substantial tranche of green belt land. While the consultation paper makes it clear that it is the Government's intention to work within Thurrock's UDC as far as protection of the green belt is concerned, it also makes it clear that not all development will be on brownfield sites, and that housing, commercial and industrial growth would be focused predominantly, but not exclusively—those are the words used in the consultation paper—on brownfield land.
	Again, in the words of the consultation paper, there should be regeneration of undeveloped green belt land and the green belt should be used as a key driver for the regeneration of the borough's less attractive and under-utilised green open spaces. These words do not inspire confidence that there will be proper observance of the green belt. My first question to the Minister is this: what constraints will be laid to prevent encroachment on to green belt land?
	The Minister also pointed out that the urban development corporation is expected to have planning powers. Will those planning powers include powers of compulsory purchase? If so, will they fall within the confines of the forthcoming Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, or under the previous legislation?
	The consultation paper refers to the urban development corporation having "strategic planning powers". The Minister has made it clear that these powers will be for large-scale developments only, so can we assume that the local authority will remain responsible for all other planning applications within its area? Where the UDC has planning powers, will it be required to consult in the normal way, not only with local representatives but also with those who might be affected by any planning decision—for example, local people living nearby within sight of or surrounding a proposed development? Will the UDC's planning decisions be made in public? Will these be for both outline and full applications?
	The local Essex Council for the Protection of Rural England has sent me its response to the document. It is anxious that the UDC should be required to produce a strategic framework and master plans for regeneration; acquire, assemble and prepare previously developed urban land and buildings on brownfield sites; promote specific regeneration opportunities on individual sites; ensure that any development is of the highest standard and quality; and regularly monitor and publicly report on performance and progress. Will these requirements be laid down within the terms of what the UDC is required to do?
	The membership of the UDC, it is said, is to have a strong local representation. Who is expected to fulfil that role and from what organisations? Will they include representatives from heritage and preservation societies such as the CPRE, which has briefed me on this issue? Will the Government lay down the structure of the representation, particularly in view of their assertion that they do not believe that any one interest group should have a majority on the board of the UDC?
	Finally, the UDC is required to ensure that matters of the environment, air quality, adequacy of water supplies and infrastructure are taken into account and that employment is generated. But no mention is made of a requirement to ensure that there are adequate schools, hospitals and leisure facilities in an area where it is proposed that more than 17,000 new dwellings should be provided. What is the position in regard to those issues?

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I concur with many of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Can the Minister explain how the consultation process will operate with local people if planning powers are taken over by the urban development corporation? Many local people are concerned about that issue, although I accept that within the local area most people are in favour of the corporation going ahead.
	How will the infrastructure be dealt with by the urban development corporation? As I understand it, the population of the area is approximately 170,000 people. They have no local hospital with an accident and emergency facility and they are concerned that the infrastructure should not be lost in the development. People recognise that housing is needed in the area but they are concerned that the necessary facilities will not be provided.
	Some people are a little surprised that the whole of Thurrock district was included given that a high proportion of it is green belt and this is an urban development corporation. Can the Minister comment on that issue?
	The consultation documents refer to the regeneration of previously underdeveloped green belt. They state that this could be utilised as a key driver for the regeneration of the less attractive, under-utilised green open spaces. People are confused about precisely what that means. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us on that issue and the other points I have raised.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses and I shall do my best to answer their questions.
	On the issue of compulsory purchase, I presume that the urban development corporation will have the same compulsory purchase powers as other development corporations have had in the past. The legislation vehicle is exactly the same. As with all compulsory purchase authorities—that is, local authorities—there will be changes under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, but that Bill will not become an Act for some months to come. I cannot be certain when the new powers for compulsory purchase will come in but they will affect all relevant authorities at the time Royal Assent is given and the Act comes into being.
	The normal rules will apply. There has been no attempt to short-cut the rules. All other planning applications in Thurrock—for house extensions and so on—will be a matter for the local planning authority, which is the local council.
	As part of the overall sustainable community plan for the Thames Gateway, Thurrock Borough Council looked at the situation, as did other authorities, and said, "We would like a UDC operation in our area". It was not a question of imposition. The normal rules will apply for treating planning applications by the urban development corporation. It will be required to consult in the normal way a local authority would, using powers of public consultation and written notices, with nothing behind closed doors in the sense of circumventing the normal planning rules. It is not our intention to do that.
	I realise that the green belt is a sensitive issue. I was at a meeting in the east Midlands today on the sustainable communities plan and was questioned by a member of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. It is an organisation that I support—I have no intention of ripping up rural England. But I have to repeat that the green belt has a purpose. It is not to do with areas of outstanding natural beauty or national parks. They are quite separate. The green belt is around the urban fringe to stop towns joining up. It therefore tends to be a much less environmentally pretty amenity than areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. That is not an excuse for building on green belt land—its purpose is to stop towns joining up and urban sprawl.
	We have said repeatedly, as part of the plan for the Thames Gateway, that it is highly likely that more statutory green belt land will be made through the years to stop the new settlements and communities becoming a 40-mile mini-city, because that is not our intention. Our intention is to put the green belt and countryside into the gateway.
	To give a fuller answer, I will put the paragraph I have in front of me on the record, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. While there is likely to be some re-examination of the green belt, the urban development corporation will maintain the purpose and integrity of the green belt. The focus of any development within the green belt will be on existing settlements, where in some cases there is a need to achieve a critical mass that will help create more balanced, rounded and sustainable communities. By including Thurrock's green belt within the urban development corporation's operational boundary, the UDC will also be in a better position to protect and conserve the countryside and enhance its civic function as the borough's green lung. I hope that makes it absolutely clear that it is very restrictive, narrow and specific but it made sense, looking at it in the round, to use the UDC boundary as the borough boundary rather than leaving a part out of it.
	On representation, we have made it clear there will be no overall majority of any group in particular. I cannot give details; we have appointed the chairman designate. If this House approves the order, the UDC comes into force tomorrow. The other House has already approved it. It will be useful to have the chairman in place for appointing the rest; it will be done by normal Nolan rules for everybody concerned.
	The proposals have been welcomed by Thurrock council. It recognises that the delivery of regeneration and development in the borough relies on a powerful, focused delivery mechanism. The UDC will, in any case, work closely with the council and Thurrock's local strategic partnership. Four of the 13 seats on the UDC board will be filled by elected council members, but no one section or group will have a majority on the board. It will take time and obviously the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We are not planning that many UDCs—we have already highlighted one in the Northamptonshire area and another one in the London area. Some delivery mechanisms will be led by English Partnerships while others, as in Ashford, will be led by the local authority.
	On infrastructure, I can only state what has been repeatedly said. There will be no sustainable growth or sustainable communities unless the infrastructure—by which I mean the social, economic and transport infrastructure—is dealt with. Therefore, education, health and transport mechanisms need to be part and parcel of the whole of the development, otherwise the private sector will not invest, because most of the investment will come from the private sector, people will not move there and it will not be sustainable. The whole genesis of the sustainable communities plan published last February depends on that, and we are determined to bring that about by the way in which we are operating in the department and driving forward the communities plan.
	This is a cross-government plan, not an ODPM plan. It is led by a Cabinet Committee and teams of civil servants across Whitehall so that we can get other departments bending into the mechanism of the communities plan in their own planning. They need to know we are trying to take this forward in as co-ordinated a way as possible, otherwise we will not fulfil the aim of the plan and the department, which is to create sustainable communities. We are desperately trying to indicate that we have learnt the lessons of the past.
	Only last week, along with Keith Hill, the Minister for London and for the gateway, former members of urban development corporations—which are non-existent, obviously, as they have all been wound up—shared with us their various experiences of starting them up, running them and even winding them down. We want the best possible experience to hand for carrying out this operation. If the infrastructure is not put in place, we will have failed; without the infrastructure, we will not get the growth and it will not be sustainable. We stand to be tested and judged by that commitment.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform (Gaming Machines) Order 2003

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 17th September be approved [25th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this order is made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. It extends the payment methods which can be used in gaming machines. Currently, the machines covered by the order can use coins only. The order amends Part III of the Gaming Act 1968, which sets out the law on gaming machines. It applies to England, Wales and Scotland.
	The order affects two types of gaming machine. First, there are jackpot machines, which are found in licensed casinos, bingo clubs and registered clubs. They have a legal maximum stake of 50 pence and maximum prizes of £250 to £2,000. Secondly, there are all-cash "amusement with prizes" machines, which are found in pubs and other alcohol licensed premises, betting shops, bingo clubs and adult-only parts of arcades. They have maximum stakes and prizes of 30 pence and £25. Both types of machine can be used by adults only. The order does not affect the third type of gaming machine—the so-called "coin or token amusement with prizes"—which are the only ones that can be used by children.
	The all-cash "amusement with prizes" machines will be able to take and pay out in banknotes. Jackpot machines will be able to take and pay out using banknotes and smartcards. The order abolishes a requirement that the two types of machine must be able to take payment for a single play. The order allows jackpot machines, but not "amusement with prizes" machines, to let players keep any winnings in the machine to play again, if they want to.
	The smartcards that the order will allow work in the same way as phone cards. Players buy them from the casino, bingo or club operator and use them to play machines. If they win, the money they have won is credited to the card. They can then cash in their card to collect their winnings. The order does not allow the use of bank debit cards or credit cards.
	The order is backed by detailed guidance drawn up by the Gaming Board for Great Britain and the gaming machines industry. The order and the guidance contain important safeguards. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the House has considered the order in great detail, as has the Regulatory Reform Committee in another place. Changes were recommended and have been made, and both committees now recommend that the order is suitable to be made.
	As will be known, the Government are proceeding with a gambling Bill, which will allow the use of smartcards and banknotes in all gaming machines not playable by children.
	The independent review of gambling controls chaired by Sir Alan Budd concluded in its report, published in July 2001, that the Government should proceed with the proposals for the use of banknotes and smartcards in gaming machines in advance of any gambling Bill. We believe that it is right to make the changes in the order in advance of the Bill. Apart from anything else, it will save the gaming machines industry around £2 million a year. There has been extensive public scrutiny of the proposals.
	I can confirm to the House that I am satisfied that the terms of the order are fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 17th September be approved [25th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the comprehensive explanation of the objectives behind this order. As the Minister explained, the order amends the provisions in Part III of the Gaming Act 1968 and will revise and extend the methods of payment in gaming machines. The order relates to two types of machine: jackpot machines and higher value "amusement with prizes" machines. Section 31 of the Gaming Act imposes restrictions on the methods of payment and forms by which prizes can be delivered. The purpose of the order is to remove these burdens and allow payment in a form that constitutes money or money's worth. Both types of machine will continue to be able to operate using coins, in addition to the new payment methods. However, important distinctions, such as location and stake applicable to each type of machine, remain.
	On the l3th March, a draft order was laid before Parliament for scrutiny in accordance with the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. In addition, the guidelines that accompany the order detail the operation of gaming machines that take banknotes and smartcards and have been agreed by the industry's trade association, BACTA.
	We on these Benches welcome the changes proposed by both the House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee and the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. The House of Lords Select Committee expressed concern about the two-pound cut-off and recommended that that cut-off should be included on the face of the order rather than the guidelines. We support that position. The guidelines do not have statutory force and may be amended without parliamentary consultation. Placing this requirement on the face of the order will guarantee the necessary protection afforded to the player by the two-pound cut-off. We therefore welcome the Government's decision to adopt this proposal and amend the order in accordance with that recommendation.
	The House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee concluded that the draft order should be amended so that it stipulated that higher value AWP machines may accept only coins and banknotes as payment for play. In addition, the committee made recommendations about the Gaming Board/BACTA guidelines. The Government have subsequently amended the order in accordance with those recommendations. We agree with the committee's conclusion on that point.
	In essence, we support the adoption of the Budd report recommendation to modernise machine payment methods without the need for primary legislation. While the concerns relating to use of credit cards in gaming machines are justified, no such concern arises with relation to the use of smartcards or banknotes. We welcome the Government's move to address industry concerns and amend their policy in accordance with these recommendations.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for explaining so clearly what is contained in the draft instrument. I shall not even attempt to rehearse the details of what is contained in the order as it has been done so well already by the Minister and the noble Baroness.
	We are dealing here with a balance which has been struck by the Government—who I know I have been pressed for some time by the industry to introduce changes of this type—between the industry's requirements in the light of advancing technology and the appropriate implementation of that technology and the public interest. There are many public interest elements in gambling, which nowadays often includes machines. Some £39.1 billion annually is gambled in the United Kingdom and the figure is increasing. One expects that the number of machines will increase in ratio to that total figure and perhaps to a greater extent. They are enormously popular and the industry is very sophisticated.
	The principle in the public interest, of course, is to ensure that those who use these machines do not get themselves into a mindset whereby they have a certain amount of money and continue playing until that sum is gone without allowing themselves a chance to contemplate the various stages at which they play. Quite sensibly, the order deals with that. Under this new measure, which allows staking methods other than coins, there has to be a stage at which people can consider their actions by means of the credit available and the money they have for playing on that particular occasion. It is a delicate and complicated matter.
	I declare an interest as a member of the Select Committee which is looking at the gambling legislation that the Government are putting before us. I think that it is a pity in a way that the proposed gambling commission has not been created ahead of the committee and the introduction of the main body of the gambling Bill. I think that a proper regulatory body such as the Government envisage would be very useful in considering at least the public interest involved in these matters.
	Problem gambling is undoubtedly increasing. I have to be fair and say that the Budd report underestimated the amount of problem gambling in this country, although not purposely. The matter will be looked at thoroughly. I am quite sure that the Government have the best interests of the public in mind. I am optimistic that the results will be good and that we will be an example to the world when the Bill has gone through Parliament. This is an interim tranche, as it were, with some of the implications of the issues that we have to address. By and large, however, it is a sensible measure.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Viscount for their welcome for the order. I do not think that they asked any questions to which I need respond.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure, resuming at two minutes past nine.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.31 to 9.2 p.m.]

Hunting Bill

House again in Committee.

Lord Mancroft: moved Amendment No. 28:
	After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
	:TITLE3:"PART 1A
	:TITLE3:REGISTRATION
	:TITLE3:Introductory
	Tests for Registration: Utility and Least Suffering
	(1) The first test for registration in respect of the proposed hunting of wild mammals is that it is likely to make a contribution to—
	(a) the prevention or reduction of damage which the wild mammals to be hunted would otherwise cause to—
	(i) livestock,
	(ii) game birds or wild birds (within the meaning of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69) (interpretation of Part 1)),
	(iii) food for livestock,
	(iv) crops (including vegetables and fruit),
	(v) growing timber or regenerating woodland,
	(vi) fisheries,
	(vii) other property, or
	(viii) the biological diversity of an area (within the meaning of the United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992), or
	(b) the maintenance of sustainable populations of any particular species of wild mammal, or
	(c) the sustainable development of the area (within the meaning of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992).
	(2) The second test for registration in respect of proposed hunting of wild mammals is that it is unlikely to cause significantly more pain, suffering or distress to the wild mammals to be hunted than would be likely to be caused by any other reasonably available method of achieving the contribution mentioned in subsection (1)."

Lord Mancroft: The Committee is rather more peaceful, I am delighted to say. At the start of last week, on the first day of the Committee, Members of the Committee accepted the proposal that some of us made to reintroduce the Government's concept of registered hunting. The Minister whose Bill this is, Mr Michael, had previously made it clear that the Bill would be based not on a simple list of activities to be banned, but rather on a set of principles. Those principles would emerge first from the Burns report and, leading on from that, from the public consultation that he proposed to hold, followed by the three days of hearings at Portcullis House. That is pretty much what happened.
	The original Bill that Mr Michael introduced set up what one might loosely call two classes of hunting, exempt and registered. By inference there was therefore a third class, hunting that was neither exempt nor registered and was therefore effectively prohibited. Prohibited hunting was to be hunting that was not exempt but had failed the necessary criteria for registration. The two tests that anyone seeking registration would have to pass have come to be known as the tests of utility and least suffering.
	The purpose of the amendment is to put those two tests back into the Bill. It is a little cumbersome as it would have been more convenient to deal with them separately, but the drafting does not make that easy to achieve. The Committee will forgive me if I am a little long-winded, but the matter is quite complex to try to explain. Realistically, I am taking the role of a Minister at Second Reading in explaining a Bill, and I shall do my best.
	The first test that we come to is that of utility. In a letter on 10th April 2002, the Minister described at the start of his consultation process what he meant by utility. He wrote of,
	"the need for particular activities, particularly in the work of land and wildlife managers. It might be described as the need or usefulness of an activity for vermin control, wildlife management, habitat protection or land management and conservation".
	It is reasonable to say that that is the basis on which people responded to his consultation.
	That was also basis on which the hearings at Portcullis House took place some months later. The extensive results of the consultation are in the public domain. They were posted on the website and I believe that they were placed in the Libraries of both Houses. They can be seen if anybody so wishes. Many people have looked at them. The evidence is well known. There is nothing secret or quiet about it. Ninety per cent of the evidence received was firmly in support of hunting in its various forms and few respondents offered any evidence that even remotely justified prohibiting any form of hunting.
	Most of the responses against hunting came from the organisation which, even at that stage, was called Deadline 2000, although for reasons which have since become clear, it subsequently became expedient to change that name. I believe that it is now called the Campaign for the Protection of the Hunted Animal. It comprises three organisations: the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. They were the three main organisations which submitted evidence against hunting. They were joined by a few other individuals and a number of other smaller organisations, but the quantities involved were very low. The only scientific evidence of any substance to be submitted from that side of the debate came from Professor Stephen Harris of the Mammals Society. I am sure that he is a splendid fellow—I have debated against him, so I know that—but one could not regard him as entirely objective. His peers in the scientific word certainly do not, perhaps because a great deal of his funding comes from the three organisations to which I referred. Whether that matters or not, I am not in a position to say.
	An enormous amount of evidence was submitted by a wide range of organisations that made the utility case for hunting. Virtually every land management organisation in the United Kingdom submitted evidence, backed in many cases by hard data and independent research, that clearly showed the contribution of hunting to wildlife management, the conservation of habitats, the environment, agriculture, forestry and the social and cultural life of the British countryside, as well as to biodiversity.
	Among those organisations were the National Farmers Union, the National Farmers Union of Wales, the Country Land and Business Association, the British Association of Shooting and Conservation, the Game Conservancy Trust, the Countryside Alliance—noble Lords will recall that I am a board member of that—and many other organisations. In particular, the Game Conservancy Trust submitted a lot of hard evidence, from a variety of studies, of the contribution that hunting makes to the conservation and maintenance of the countryside by actively managing and creating habitat that benefits a huge range of wildlife and not just the four species that are relevant to the Bill.
	Research shows that hunts manage 10 per cent of the woodland in the areas over which they hunt. One of the few new pieces research to be published since the consultation was completed—it was published in the summer—was from the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology at the University of Kent. It was a remarkable piece of research and it brought to light a number of things. Most of the conservation work in the United Kingdom takes place in uplands, moorlands and wetlands. The single biggest contribution to conservation in lowland UK is from landowners and managers who take part in hunting or shooting and who manage their land with that in mind. The report is in the public domain and I hope that many of your Lordships will have seen it. It concluded that the motivation that leads to that conservation work could not be replicated by subsidy, even if that level of subsidy were available.
	I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe of Fairfield, is not in his place this evening. At Second Reading, he talked with pride about the work of the Co-op. When I was a master of hounds 10 years ago, my kennels were next door to a substantial estate owned and managed by the Co-op. All the gates were painted that revolting turquoise blue, which I suppose does not matter except that it appeared to infect the villages. There were no foxes on the land anyway—they would not have wanted to go there. There was no wildlife. It may have been well and profitably managed for the members of the Co-operative Society but, as a piece of environmental and conservation work, it was an absolute disaster.
	That is one of the problems. Constructive and motivated management is required in order to produce the type of countryside for which we are famous. It only needs a landowner or manager to take his eye off the ball, as the Co-op has done in its Gloucestershire estates, to end up with an ecological desert with no wildlife, no hedgerows and coverts with no bottom in them. That is the other side of the coin.
	There are examples to the contrary from the sporting world. I shall give just two; I do not want to detain the Committee for long. The Sinnington Hunt in Yorkshire manages a gorse cover, which contains the last remaining colony of piebald fritillary butterflies in the North East of England. The Butterfly Conservation charity wrote congratulating the Ravenswick Estate Company on achieving what the rest of Yorkshire had failed to do. The management strategy for that woodland was fox hunting. In the New Forest, the survival of the Montagu's harrier is threatened by foxes taking the chicks. In 1997, the Forestry Commission—

Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful. The noble Lord referred to the absence of my noble friend Lord Fyfe. Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord that my noble friend is ill and has had an operation. He would have liked to be here. He would have defended himself. However, I rise because of the astounding remarks that the noble Lord ascribes to the management by the Co-op—that is, the CWS—of its farms. He is well aware that members of the Co-op comprise the largest group of farmers in the country. They have an impeccable record. I can assure the noble Lord that I shall seek an early response either from the chief executive, Mr Martin Beaumont, or from the farms manager. I am sure that he will be written to and asked to substantiate what he said. What he said was a slur upon the quality of the management by the CWS of a very large holding. Whatever they say, I resent what he has said.

Lord Mancroft: I am sure that all Members of the Committee will extend their sympathy and encouragement to the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe, and hope that he returns to us hale and hearty very soon. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for drawing that to your Lordships' attention.
	I am very sorry if the noble Lord is upset by what I said about the Co-op land. I know that its members form a large group of farmers. I did not know that they comprised the largest group in Britain, although of course I know that the Co-op owns a large amount of land. I know only that one estate, which comprises perhaps 2,000 acres in Gloucestershire. I do not know it today, but 10 years ago I knew it extremely well. The manager, who was an extremely nice man whom I knew well, and his wife managed the estate as they were instructed, but I know that they were not particularly happy with the conservation policy that they were obliged to follow. I am certain that it was a very successful farm economically but it was not very pretty to look at and it stuck out like a sore thumb compared with some of the farms nearby, which were managed rather more sympathetically. However, I shall look forward to receiving a letter and hearing what the Co-op has to say about that.
	I return to the subject of the New Forest, where the survival of the Montagu's harrier was threatened by foxes taking chicks. In 1997 the Forestry Commission called in the New Forest hunt to help. The hunt killed eight foxes within one mile of the nesting site and, using the hounds, was able to locate a den near the nest. A fox was dug out and humanely destroyed. So it is not just the quarry species themselves which benefit from hunting; a variety of other animals benefit from sympathetic management and the things that hunting can do.
	The utility is not solely directed at culling or pest control. Both culling and pest control are important but pest control is simply one part of the management of any species. No doubt the Minister will return to the old theme that hunting accounts for only about 10 per cent of foxes killed in places such as the East Midlands. In my view, saying that demonstrates the absurdity of the position which the Government have got themselves into.
	Why does anyone think it is that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a wildlife management department but not a pest control department? It is because wildlife management is the aim. Pest control is just one part of it. Wildlife management is about conserving healthy and balanced populations of species in numbers that are sustainable for very different environments up and down the country. I say that with one exception, on which we have not touched in these debates, which is that of mink. I am sorry to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, is not in her place. I am sure that she would have something to say on this subject.
	We want sustainable, manageable, balanced populations of fox, hare and deer. We want, I think, no population of mink. Hunting is just one way of getting rid of them. I should like to see more ways of getting rid of them—of course humanely. Everyone accepts that and would like to see that, but we must get rid of mink.
	It has to be remembered that in lowland Britain, where every man's hand is against the fox, hunting is the great preserver of foxes. Of course, in the uplands and moorlands the role of hunting is as the main or sole reducer of the fox population. We do not need to go over ground that we have been over earlier today to talk about hunting on moorland and in hill country. There, it is absolutely vital and the role of hunting is very different. Hunting in its many forms is an extraordinary activity and adapts to the local environment. It finds its way in so that it is suitable in lowland country, hill country and moorland country. Rather like the animals, it adapts to the circumstances required for the management of the environment. The object is that the level of livestock predation does not become untenable or that foxes encroach too heavily on fragile populations of ground nesting birds, another subject that we have discussed.
	We were frequently told—we discussed this earlier—that foxes account for only 2 per cent of viable lambs. I do not apologise for repeating what I said earlier. Two per cent is 300,000 lambs. That is not so paltry for those who have to derive a living from them. It must be remembered also that that is against a background of intensive hunting—in any area where hunting accounts for over 50 per cent of the annual cull. I ask Members of the Committee to imagine what it would be like in Wales, the Lake District or the moorlands if we did not have hunting and it was not managing 50 per cent of the cull in an area where it would be difficult to find another way of culling.
	At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Laird, who is not in his place, asked why the country was not overrun by foxes in the year of foot and mouth when there was no hunting. There was hunting for three-quarters of the first year and for half of the second year. So a great deal of the cull during the foot and mouth year had taken place at the front end and at the back end. But, as the Farmers Union of Wales said in January 2002,
	"The ban on fox hunting over the last year has led to an explosion in the fox population to unprecedented levels".
	In some cases farmers who lost six or seven lambs to foxes normally have seen numbers they lose jump to between 35 and 40. That is not an easy issue either. It is an important factor. One of the most difficult things about this debate is the sweeping statements that are made, possibly on both sides, which bear no relation to the facts.
	There are two sides to the management of wildlife which are unique to hunting. The first is dispersal. Hares are not a pest in my part of the world in Gloucestershire or in many other parts, but they are in East Anglia and in the North East. One factor that leads to damage, whether it be hares in root crop—deer in young forestry is another example—or foxes among poultry and game, is concentration of numbers. In fox terms that occurs usually in the early autumn.
	Whereas a small grass farmer in the Quantock Hills, for example, may tolerate half a dozen deer eating his spring grass, he cannot accept 40 or 50. All keepers know that they risk losing a few young partridges, but when three or four foxes get in among partridge coveys after they have been released, the economic loss is too great. Of course you can cull them all if you can get at them, but only hunting has the ability to disperse numbers.
	The reason farmers in East Anglia invite in the beagles or the harriers is not because of the one or two hares that they kill, but to disperse the 20 or 30 hares that would do all the damage. Fox hunting alone can disperse the litters of cubs in the autumn that do the kind of damage I have just talked about.
	Furthermore, hunting does that which no other method of culling, control or management can do: it encourages survival of the fittest, which is immensely important. The stronger foxes, hares and deer get away and the weaker ones get caught. There was some very interesting research done in Canada some years ago. Wolves had become extinct and over a period of time the caribou herds became listless and the quality of deer deteriorated enormously. The Canadian wildlife department reintroduced wolves to hunt the caribou. After a relatively short period of time—two or three years—the quality of the herds and their vigour improved beyond all recognition. They regained their previous energy and quality. They are a natural prey species. When such species are not preyed upon, clearly they start to deteriorate.
	Hunting has a unique ability to despatch the weak, the injured and the old. No other culling method can do that. I draw your Lordships' attention to the recent report from the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting by Professor John Webster, the professor of animal husbandry at Bristol. In the last year to which this report refers—last season—of the deer killed by the deerhounds in the West Country, 44 per cent were casualty deer, which means that they had already been injured either by shooting or by motor car accidents, illness or some other injury. Without hounds it would be impossible to find those deer and despatch them.
	About three or four months ago I spoke—it was nothing to do with this debate—to the warden of the National Trust's Holnicote Estate in the West Country. It must have been in the early summer. He told me that in February he had seen a hind with a broken leg. She was too far away for him to get to. Because he could not use scent hounds he could not catch up with that deer for more than six weeks. He finally found her. Her leg had not repaired. It was still gangrenous. She was in considerable pain and unable to feed. If he had had access to hounds—they are there, but as the Committee will know, they are not allowed on National Trust land—he could have caught up with that deer and put her out of her misery in probably half an hour. That is half an hour versus six weeks—an interesting equation in suffering.

Lord King of Bridgwater: Perhaps I may say that, having had the honour to represent that part of the world for 30 years, there were many instances of deer with half their jaws shot away and with other appalling casualties from poaching because carcasses are valuable and venison fetches a good price. The reality is that that the work of the Quantock and the Devon and Somerset staghounds was vital. Otherwise, those animals would never have been tracked down. You cannot just flush them out because you do not know where they are and you need a pack of hounds to find them.

Lord Mancroft: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his comments. The same applies to foxes, but obviously on a much larger scale because fox hunting is on a larger scale. I understand that 43 per cent of the foxes caught in the past season by hounds were casualty foxes—which means casualties of shooting, injury, illness or car accidents. As we know, an awful lot of them are killed by cars.
	So why, one wonders, did the Minister in another place, in drawing up his test of utility, or when he reached Committee, allow it to be restricted to pest control only? I know that he has argued that we—by which I think he means the Countryside Alliance and Council of Hunting Associations—have made the case only for pest control, but that is not so. Our response to his consultation states:
	"The Alliance supports the view that utility in the context of hunting can be described as including hunting's effectiveness as either a controller or manager of wildlife populations; its contribution to rural economy; its value in terms of conservation and ecology; and the social and cultural contribution it makes to rural areas. And as we have previously suggested, the value of hunting cannot be limited to its role simply as a pest controller".
	So the concept that hunting is just pest control certainly never came from us.
	I have a suspicion about where it came from. If the Committee will forgive me for a moment, I shall explain. On Second Reading and in previous debates, I said that the Government were right to consult as they did; they were right to set up the Burns inquiry. The public hearings in Portcullis House were an extraordinary and effective exercise in open democracy.
	The Minister, Mr Michael, met everyone that he could have and listened to everybody. I have no doubt that when he set out on this journey, which he is probably not much enjoying now, he intended to do his level best to find a resolution. Early in that consultation, he kindly agreed to meet me. We had a nice dinner together and covered a lot of subjects as we chatted away. Obviously, we talked a lot about hunting. I shall of course not reveal private conversation—that would be entirely unacceptable—but one part of that conversation that I do not think is especially private or confidential may shine a light on what happened.
	At one point, I said to the Minister, "If your consultation process shows that hunting is pretty useless in most areas and is really very cruel, I expect your Bill will ban it, won't it?" He said, "Yes, that is a reasonable thought; it probably will". So I said, "On the other side of the coin, if your consultation shows that hunting is actually, in the scheme of things, not very cruel and causes little suffering and, in a number of areas, is useful and fulfils a lot of needs, your Bill won't ban it, will it?" He thought for a minute and said, "Well, theoretically, I suppose that that is quite right". I then said, "The problem is: that is where you will get to". He said, "How on earth can you know that? What on earth do you mean?" I said, "Listen, I have been in this hunting and politics game for about 10 years and there is not really any new evidence. There is a bit of research here and there but, to tell the honest truth, it is all in the open. There is nothing new to be told about this great debate, this great argument. If you conduct the consultation as you plan to"—and, indeed, the way that he did: very openly—"that is where it will take you. It will take you to the conclusion that hunting is not very cruel but is pretty useful. What will you do then, because your Back-Benchers will not buy that?"
	That was the only unhappy moment of our entire happy evening. I suspect that that is exactly what happened. The consultation arrived there and the Bill was moved to here.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I could remind the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that none of the timings in the Companion fits with 25 minutes spent to move one amendment; we are drifting towards the time for not one but two Second Reading speeches.

Lord Mancroft: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness; I hope not, but, as I said when I started, this is fantastically complicated. This is an amendment, but it is like a Second Reading because this is what should have been done at Second Reading; we were unable to do so. I shall attempt to finish quickly.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: For the record, I am not aware that anyone constrained any noble Lord's ability to speak on Second Reading.

Lord Mancroft: I did not suggest that for a moment; I do not know where that came from. I agree that no one constrained anyone.
	The second test that your Lordships are being asked to reintroduce to the Bill is the test of least suffering. We must remind ourselves that Burns found no cruelty and that is why he talked about suffering. The other important point that emerged from the hearings was that suffering cannot be measured on the Richter scale. At Committee stage in another place it was referred to as the Opik scale, in the name of Mr Lembit Opik. The other immensely important principle to emerge was that man's motive in those activities is irrelevant.
	A vast amount of work has been done on the issue, but none of it produces any evidence that hunting creates any more suffering than any of the other activities. We have chosen the words in the amendment to reflect the test in what we believe to be the most reasonable way possible. The amendment would put the two tests back into the Bill in nearly their previous form, with two small changes. I beg to move.

Lord Palmer: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, Amendment No. 28A:
	Line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) the control of nuisance animals"

Lord Palmer: I am very sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Fyfe of Fairfield, is unwell. I am wearing my Co-op tie especially to please him, so I am sorry that he is not here. I wear it out of respect more for the Co-op's retail movement than the countryside management aspect of that enormous operation. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the largest landowner in the country is the National Trust rather than the Co-op.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: I did not say that the Co-op was the largest landowner; I said that it was the largest farmer.

Lord Palmer: I bow to the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I am not 100 per cent certain whether he is correct.
	When the Government conducted their six-month consultation, the definition of "utility" was drawn widely, recognising in the light of the Burns report that hunting had complex utility value. As I said at Second Reading, I believe that the Government will rue the day that the dreadful word "utility" was introduced into the Bill. Pest control is not simply about numbers killed but about the control and management of species. The amendment, in conjunction with the other conditions in the new clause, seeks to ensure that the registrar, in assessing utility, takes account of all aspects of hunting's utility. The amendment looks at the role of hunting as a control mechanism.
	The contribution of hunting to species management is recognised by every major land use organisation, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said. It must not be forgotten that hunting is financed by its participants and, therefore, provides species management at no cost to the farmer or the public purse. Hunts do not require an enormous police presence as at any football match. All alternative methods of control have direct cost implications for farmers, who already suffer the most terrible economic hardship.
	Following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the hunting associations immediately and voluntarily suspended all hunting. Although the hunting season was drawing to a close, there were many areas where normal spring hunting, including the "lambing call service", was prevented. Within a few days, hunts started to receive calls from farmers suffering acute fox predation resulting in severe lambing losses.
	In summer 2002, a survey of one-third of foxhound packs across the United Kingdom found that the temporary suspension of hunting owing to foot and mouth disease had reduced their normal fox cull by nearly 5,000. There were 4,700 calls from farmers asking for assistance with fox damage. Welsh farms in sheep-rearing areas lost an average of £500-worth of stock by additional fox predation. To a hill farmer in Wales, that is an enormous amount of money.
	Since the resumption of hunting—on 17th December in some areas and much later in others—there is clear evidence from standard reporting forms from hunts, that in many areas there are unusually large concentrations of undispersed foxes. Other UK major land use groups also express the importance of control. The National Farmers Union stated in its submission to the Burns inquiry that:
	"Pest control requirements will vary sharply from one region to another and from one farm business to another depending on a range of circumstances".
	Indeed, it is dangerous to generalise at all. For example, a sheep farmer may suffer persistent predation of his sheep by foxes which is not shared by his neighbours in the locality, perhaps because of his proximity to completely different features such as woodland. Full regard must be had to the fact that problems caused by agricultural pests, whether they be foxes, deer, hares, or mink—and I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, about what a shame it is that the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, is not in her place—or other species, can have severe consequences for farmers' businesses. It must not be forgotten that most farmers are still suffering terrible financial hardship.
	Of gamekeepers asked in 1994, 96.4 per cent said that foxes were present on their land and needed to be controlled. Control was necessary to ensure that damage to game, wildlife and livestock was reduced or kept at acceptable levels. The particularly vulnerable times of year were obviously lambing and nesting.
	The Ministry of Agriculture as it was in those days also stated in its submission to the Burns inquiry:
	"Brown hares are typically a farmland species and high densities can be associated with grazing damage to crops and damage to young, unprotected forestry plantations. Hares are considered as agriculture pests and the Ground Game Act 1880 allows farmers to take them at any time of year".
	However, foxes can cause serious local problems to farmers and landowners; as a result they may take measures to control local fox populations, as well as responding to individual incidents of fox predation. Foxes may also cause localised problems to free-range poultry interests, have a detrimental impact on grey partridge numbers and disperse colonies of all types of ground nesting birds. Nearly 95 per cent of those farmers questioned normally allow hunting with dogs on their farms. That includes the use of terriers and lurchers. Almost 4 per cent of those questioned said that they did not allow hunting with dogs on their farms. Nearly 50 per cent of farmers carry out no alternative methods of control other than hunting with dogs. I beg to move this amendment.

Lord Moran: I made clear my objections to this Bill on Second Reading and I was glad to give my strongest support to the concept of registration in the votes in our first day of this Committee. However, Amendment No. 28 is the first about which I have some doubts. I share the objection of my noble friend Lord Palmer to the word "utility".
	My main concern is as a fisherman. As was made clear by the Countryside Alliance in its brief for Second Reading, the test of utility was narrowly drawn in the Bill. In Committee, that test was narrowed specially to cover pest control. The word "utility" has come to mean pest control. However, both coarse and game fishing have no utility on that basis. The widespread introduction of catch-and-release on conservation grounds, which is to be welcomed, means that there is even less utility in fishing.
	Fishermen worry that, if the concept of utility is seen not simply as something that has been put forward by the Government but as something that is approved of by the House, it will give an additional handle to the League Against Cruel Sports and the other organisations that may be concerned with banning fishing in due course.
	At Second Reading in the Commons, Alun Michael defined the test of utility as,
	"a need for the activity to take place for the protection of livestock, crops and so on"—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/02; col. 576.]
	The only person who raised the question of fishing was Mr Lembit Opik of the Liberal Democrats, who said that he was also concerned that the utility principle in the Bill could lead to the eventual banning of shooting and angling.
	I am chairman of a committee known as the Moran committee, which comprises all the main fishery and angling organisations in England and Wales. At a meeting last week, I mentioned my concerns and found that they were shared by all the members of the committee. It would be good if we could get away from the concept of utility.
	In Amendment No. 28, the definitions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the things to which the registration should contribute are excellent, but the title of the new clause worries me—it is "Tests for registration: utility and least suffering". If those responsible for the amendment could take out the words "utility and least suffering", which are not needed, I would be happier.
	I have never understood why the Countryside Alliance and those who support it were happy about the concept of utility when it has come to mean pest control. Inevitably, it will discriminate against the big lowland hunts. On Report in another place, Alun Michael said that the Bill, as then amended, would,
	"only allow the hunting of foxes and mink in exceptional circumstances, for pest control and only when alternative methods can be shown to cause significantly more suffering".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/03; col. 56.]
	That will not worry packs in my part of the world—Wales—who are engaged in pest control to a considerable extent, but I wonder whether the Quorn and the Pytchley would regard their operations as pest control. If tests were applied, hill packs in places such as Wales would be allowed to continue, and lowland packs would not. Surely, that is not what the Countryside Alliance wants.
	Before the next stage, those who tabled the amendment should consider the dangers of opening the door to a move against fishing and, I suppose, shooting. I am surprised that those in the Countryside Alliance responsible for shooting and fishing have not raised that point. Perhaps they have or perhaps they have been asleep. It is important that the fishing and shooting fraternity are at one with Members of the Committee on this issue. Therefore, if the word "utility" could be eliminated from now on, I, for one, would be extremely grateful.

Baroness Mallalieu: As I have added my name to the amendment, perhaps I may refer Members of the Committee to what it does in relation to the process which Alun Michael started and to the Bill which he introduced into the House. From some of the remarks made by my noble friend the Minister before we adjourned, I anticipate that it will be suggested that, in some way, this is a dramatic change.
	I turn briefly to what it was that we started out to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has already said, when Alun Michael announced his consultation process in a letter to interested parties in April 2002, he gave some indication of the two key principles which he intended to address in the Bill; that is, the prevention of cruelty and the concept of utility. I do not understand utility to be a term of art. I simply understand it to mean that it serves a useful purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has already read out part of that letter. Perhaps I may read the rest. Alun Michael wrote:
	"Cruelty is already dealt with in our legal system in regard to a variety of aspects other than hunting".
	I shall pause there to say that the definition which appeared later in his Bill bore no relation to the definition of cruelty in our legal system in any statute that I have been able to find. I understood the definition of cruelty generally to be the deliberate infliction of unnecessary suffering. We shall come to see how that changed. He then wrote in relation to utility that,
	"'Utility'"—
	I apologise for repeating the words, but they are important in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has just said.
	"'Utility' addresses the need for particular activities, particularly in the work of land and wildlife managers. It might be described as the need or usefulness of an activity for vermin control, wildlife management, habitat protection or land management and conservation".
	At that stage, it was clear that the Minister had in mind something very much wider than we finally got in the Bill.
	Alun Michael completed the Portcullis House hearings and on the final day, 11th September 2002, he issued a press release, in which he wrote:
	"The future of hunting with dogs should not be decided on personal taste, but on evidence on the principles of whether or not it is serving an effective purpose in managing wildlife and whether it is more or less cruel than the alternative methods currently available".
	So even at the end of the Portcullis House hearings, he had in mind sensible definitions of utility and, no doubt, of cruelty, to which he had referred earlier.
	I think that I have an advantage over most noble Lords in having a copy of the original government Bill which has been annotated to show the amendments that are being made by the proposal made in the amendment now before the Committee. Perhaps I may just indicate what the changes are to Alun Michael's original Bill. Far from totally changing what is to be done, I hope that what we are doing is to go back to those principles which the Minister said at the outset he would introduce legislation to meet.
	In relation to subsection (1) of Amendment No. 28, some words have been deleted which would have made better English. Mr Michael's original version read:
	"The first test for registration in respect of proposed hunting of wild mammals is that it is likely to make a significant contribution to the prevention or reduction of serious damage which the wild mammals to be hunted would otherwise cause to"—
	followed by the paragraphs listed below in the original Bill. What we have done is to take out the word "significant", so that it refers simply to "contribution", and to take out the remaining words in that paragraph so that the test now reads,
	"is likely to make a significant contribution to,
	(a) the prevention or reduction of damage",
	and involves the following sub-paragraphs.
	In subsection (1)(a)(ii), we have added the words "or wild birds", the original protection having been given simply to game birds. That seems to be a sensible amendment to the provision which can be regarded only as an improvement.
	In sub-paragraph (v), to the words "growing timber", we have added "or regenerating woodland". Again, that is a plain and common-sense improvement to the Bill and could not possibly be said dramatically to alter it.
	Towards the end we have added to paragraph (b) the words,
	"the maintenance of sustainable populations of any particular species of wild mammal",
	which goes straight back to a point enunciated at the outset by Alun Michael as one of the principles of wildlife management; and paragraph (c) reads,
	"the sustainable development of the area . . . within the meaning of the Rio Declaration".
	That should have been included in the original government Bill. There is no point in our signing up to such conventions only to ignore them when we come to introduce our own domestic legislation.
	All those points seem to be totally in accordance with what Alun Michael indicated that he proposed to do, and all the alterations are improvements to the original version.
	I turn to subsection (2), which could be described as the "cruelty subsection". The original test proposed by Alun Michael was, frankly, difficult to follow even for lawyers. It stated:
	"The second test for registration in respect of proposed hunting of wild mammals is that a contribution equivalent to that mentioned in subsection (1) could not reasonably be expected to be made (whether by the person proposing to hunt or by another person) in a manner likely to cause significantly less pain, suffering or distress to the wild mammal to be hunted".
	Noble Lords can see what has been done. I submit that we have produced a sensible, fair and readily comprehensible test.
	If it is said, as I expect it may, that this amendment seeks to run a coach and horses through what Alun Michael produced as the government Bill at the outset, I respond by saying: go back to what he announced to the public, what he wrote to those who communicated with him, and what he produced at the outset. What we have done is to take his initial proposals and seek to clarify and strengthen them. Surely that is the role of this Committee.

Earl Peel: I am extremely grateful, as I am sure are other noble Lords, for the concise explanation given by the noble Baroness of the way in which the definition has been expanded under this amendment. I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Mancroft for explaining at such great length the complexities of this amendment.
	I had the distinct impression that when the Minister, Alun Michael, originally decided to base a system of licensed hunting on cruelty and utility—bearing in mind the original definition of "utility"—there was a general agreement that that was a useful way forward. Why that definition of utility was later allowed to be confined solely to pest control was, in my view, something of a mystery and certainly a travesty. I say that in particular given that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, produced his lengthy and time-consuming report on a whole host of other factors which embraced the social, economic, environmental and conservation elements that inevitably accompany hunting. Indeed, those discussions went further and were deliberated during the Portcullis House agreements.
	So I believe that everyone had a genuine expectation that the definition of utility, as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, was something that we wanted and expected to find set out in the Bill. As a result, I think it is wholly sensible for the amendment to be worded in this way.
	One has to ask, therefore, why the Minister removed such tests, thus prejudging in effect what decisions the registrar was going to make. Of course the truth of the matter is that the proposal was tightened so that there would be a ban in everything but name—and that, I repeat, is the truth.
	We are being asked, through the amendment, to reinstate under the utility tests the other considerations that were so painfully considered by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and in the Portcullis House discussions. It is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable objective.
	As regards the sustainable development of areas within the meaning of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, what on earth is the point of the Government negotiating and agreeing these declarations if we do not implement them into the law of this country? We should bear in mind the cultural, social and economic aspects rooted in these agreements which are such a fundamental part of hunting. We cannot isolate the human dimension from the environmental dimension and the economic dimension. They are all part of the thread that makes the countryside work.
	I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment. It is a thoroughly responsible way of redefining—not in a massively different way but in a more comprehensive way—the word that the Minister himself wished to use as a test, that of "utility".

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: This is a very important amendment. Many of the issues I wished to address have already been spoken to and defined. I shall therefore confine my remarks to the topics of utility—in particular its impact on livestock, fisheries and mink—the Middle Way Group scientific study on shooting and the principle of least suffering. I shall also address some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in his excellent amendments.
	As we have heard, "utility" in the context of the Bill was defined by the Minister, Alun Michael, at the time the hearings took place. Indeed, quotations of what he said have already been given. The doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, about the possible impact on fishing cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, the debate at the moment concerns the way in which these topics were defined by the Minister at the time. Quite clearly he intended to use the two tests of utility and least suffering as part of his Bill. The fact that it was overturned in the House of Commons and modified as time went on is a story with which we are all familiar.
	I declare an interest as someone who was brought up on a farm, who has managed farms both in a commercial sense and in an agricultural college, and who farms a medium-sized sheep flock. I also declare an interest as someone who is particularly keen on fishing.
	There is no doubt that foxes prey on poultry and livestock such as lambs, calves and piglets. It is widely acknowledged that foxes engage in surplus killing—that is, killing more than they need to eat. There is a great deal of evidence of lambs being killed and left in the field. I have experienced it myself. Usually, headless lambs are found first thing in the morning. When you are lambing, "first thing in the morning" is about 5 a.m. That is when you find that lambs have been killed and their carcasses left in the field. This is quantified much more easily these days because sheep farmers often number their lambs from one to 300 as they are born and it is quite easy to count the numbers that have gone. In my worst experience, 37 lambs disappeared, which came to twice as much as the £500 loss quoted as an average figure.
	It is the propensity of the fox to prey on agricultural stock that brings the biggest demand for fox control from farmers. The Burns report said of mid-Wales, my part of the world, that farmers, landowners and gamekeepers consider that it is necessary to manage the fox population. Over one-third of foxes in mid-Wales are culled as a result of terrier work, for example.
	I take issue with some of the things that have been said about pest control. It is clearly an important part, although not the only part, of the issue. In its press statements, the NFU refers to the control of foxes as pest control. It refers to pest control tests that can lead to a notice being served on occupiers of land by the Ministry of Agriculture, as was, and now by Defra, under Sections 98 and 99 of the Agriculture Act 1947. That notice can require people to ensure that these pests are destroyed. Failure to comply may result in the pest being destroyed by the ministry at the occupier's expense. I know of no repeal of that part of the 1947 Act.
	Those problems impinge on the effective management of ewe flocks. As has been said, the impact of foot and mouth and the fact that there was quite a long delay until hunting resumed caused a considerable increase in the number of foxes in the countryside.
	I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, is absent from the debate. I am sure there is a very good reason for that. The situation with regard to fisheries and feral mink is very serious. Apart from preying on ground-nesting birds, mink kill a tremendous number of fish in our rivers and have contributed to the virtual disappearance of the moorhen, a delightful bird, from our countryside.
	The mink is not native to this country; it was introduced in the 1920s from America. Hunting with dogs has a huge utility in controlling mink. It is my view that mink should be exterminated from the United Kingdom and that the Government should bring forward legislation to achieve that. In the mean time, the hunting of mink is very important. Mink are not passive. Being confronted by one in a farmyard is very challenging. It is a very unpleasant animal. The trapping of mink does occur, but as far as fisheries are concerned, it is imperative that mink are controlled.
	The Middle Way Group commissioned a scientific investigation into shooting foxes instead of hunting them. The results of the study were released in June 2003; it was conducted by five independent qualified animal experts who observed and filmed foxes being shot by both shotguns and rifles. The study was made under field conditions and concluded that,
	"for every fox shot dead with a shotgun, at least the same number of foxes are wounded and many of these are never found".
	I have done quite a lot of shooting in the countryside, and I am not making a case against shooting in a general sense. I am saying merely that it is not an effective method of controlling foxes. Even with experts, only about one-third of all shots fired hit their target. Shotguns are not a very effective method of doing it, and we all know the dangers of using rifles in the countryside, given the increased access that people now have.
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said;
	"Cruelty is justifiable only if the alternative is worse cruelty or there is no alternative in achieving the utilitarian objective".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; col.892.]
	There is scientific evidence to show that certain types of shooting will cause a much higher level of wounding than previously claimed. Indeed, that claim of low wounding rates has been exposed as seriously flawed. In December 2002, Alun Michael said of the regulatory Bill in a Written Statement:
	"There are no restrictions on hunting with dogs of rats and rabbits because this method of controlling the populations satisfies the two tests and causes less suffering than alternative methods of control such as poisoning or snaring".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/02; col. 79WS.]
	So snaring is considered by the Minister, and presumably by the Government, to be worse than hunting with dogs. Now there is scientific evidence to show that certain shooting regimes will cause high levels of wounding. Indeed, it appears that the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is right—that only hunting with dogs is to be singled out for abolition.
	Animal welfare issues must be addressed—that is very important indeed—but there is a clear inconsistency in many of the arguments put forward by some anti-hunting organisations. The Government have stated that they want to improve the welfare of wild mammals, so they must surely see that such muddled thinking provides no basis for good legislation. The more that the Government ignore scientific evidence and restrict their attention to hunting with dogs alone, while at the same time accepting that there are methods that cause even more suffering, the more they will leave themselves open to the charge of hypocrisy.
	I am pleased to say that, at a press conference this morning, there was a discussion on the Middle Way shooting study. There was present a representative from the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Professor Stephen Harris. It was exposed in this morning's meeting that his evidence challenging the Middle Way findings was contained only in a press release. The completion of his research had not been validated yet, and not even published, so he was making assertions with no substantial background.
	I am pleased to be able to report from that meeting that the co-operative discussion eventually took place after some confrontational argument. There is now a basis for a joint study to be held by the Middle Way Group and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, so that independent principles can be established for least suffering, and in particular in relation to shooting as an alternative to hunting.
	We believe that to be a breakthrough and to deserve consideration, because it will be a much more objective outcome than some assertions that have been made on the issue. It is a constructive set of proposals, perhaps to find out the truth. In the mean time, there is insufficient evidence to say that hunting is not the best way of controlling foxes. Indeed, it is the most effective way of doing so.

Baroness Byford: I support Amendment No. 28. We are addressing the issue of whether registered hunting should be allowed. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to the 11th September 2002 news release which was quite clearly headed,
	"Hunting with dogs: the solution should be based on evidence and principle, not personal taste—Alun Michael".
	The release continued:
	"As three days of hearings of evidence from experts on hunting with dogs ended today, Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael commented:
	'This innovative process has brought together some of the country's top experts on this contentious issue. Together with the three umbrella groups I have been able to explore in depth the key principles of least suffering and utility.
	'These are two principles on which I base my proposals for enabling the House to reach a resolution—so fulfilling our manifesto commitment'".
	Well, we all know what happened to that.
	In her earlier comments the noble Baroness also quoted from that particular brief, which states:
	"The future of hunting with dogs should not be decided on personal taste".
	I shall not finish the quote. After it, however, there is a most important passage. It reads:
	"Taking account of the evidence given at these hearings, and of the response to my two consultation papers, I plan to set out proposals for Parliament which can form good and robust law and can take us forward into the 21st century, able to reflect evolving views on animal welfare and wildlife management".
	The rejection by the House of Commons of the original Bill completely overturned that statement, following which a ban was proposed.
	As many Members of the Committee said, we are proposing restoring the clause that deals with utility and cruelty. Reference has been made to the number of sheep taken. I should declare and remind the Committee that, originally, after leaving school, I became a poultry farmer. As evening approached I had to be very careful to ensure that my hens and chickens were locked up or the fox would come round. Please do not think that a fox kills only one or two because it does not. It will kill the lot regardless of whether it intends to eat them. Other figures—such as 300,000 lambs killed—have also been cited.
	I should also remind the Committee that farmers are being encouraged to promote free-range activities in both pig and poultry farming. There is an acute risk that fox predation of those types of livestock will increase. My noble friend referred to the dispersal role played by hunts. We should not undervalue that role.
	I turn to the issue of least suffering. As we know, hunts hunt only during a closed season. They do not hunt when vixen are carrying cubs as that is banned. If this provision is not reintroduced into the Bill, it is likely that foxes will be shot year round. Whatever happens, more foxes will be shot; of that there is no doubt.
	Some Members of the Committee have mentioned the issue of controlling the fox population by snaring, gassing—which is illegal—and shooting. None is a good alternative. Snaring is probably one of the worst ways in which an animal can die. They are left in agony, perhaps for a long time, dying from the snare injury, starvation, cold or exposure. It is estimated that of animals caught in snares, 50 per cent are species other than the target one. That is very worrying.
	As we know, deer are a great concern for the Woodland Trust and the Forestry Commission. In its evidence of 22nd October, the Woodland Trust said:
	"Deer are a major problem in both upland and lowland areas of the UK. The intense grazing by deer means that trees unable to regenerate and remain in wooded areas die off slowly from the ground up".
	The Forestry Commission in its submission to Burns stated:
	"Currently Forestry Commission policy is to implement deer management procedures involving assessments of populations and their impact followed by the control of the numbers to ensure that an acceptable balance between deer numbers and damage to the forest environment is maintained".
	It is not just those of us who have hunted in the past, or perhaps are still involved in hunting, who are concerned about the way in which this Bill has been presented to your Lordships over the past few days. The original government Bill brought forward by Alun Michael was altered totally on Third Reading in the House of Commons.
	Certain bodies have suggested that we need this statement regarding the whole question of registration, utility and cruelty. The NFU, the CLA, the Game Conservancy Trust and many others support this amendment.
	I hope that we shall reach a swift conclusion on whether we support the amendment. I say to Members of the Committee who wonder whether it is wise to support the amendment that the alternative ways of killing and controlling foxes and deer are much crueller. I beg Members of the Committee at least to consider that. I support the amendment.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: After the two days of debate we have had in Committee no one can say that anyone has been inhibited either in what they have said or in how long they have decided to take to express it. From time to time comment has been made about a paucity of speakers on this side of the Committee among those who are favour of the ban. We have tried to exercise due diligence and caution in ensuring that the Bill gets back to the Commons as quickly as possible. Therefore, we have maintained a strict control upon the number and length of speeches. I make no complaint. We are all adults.
	On the first amendment that we discussed last Tuesday I was the only person to express a certain view. Twenty-two others expressed an opposing view. That was the way in which they decided to use their time. When the Chief Whip spoke at the beginning of the two days of Committee debate, he pointed out that he had allocated two days for the Committee stage. Noble Lords opposite in their wisdom and maturity have decided to take the time that they have in speaking to a very small part of the Bill. That is their choice. I have certainly learnt a lot from what has been said and I respect the integrity of those who have said it. But at the end of the day these amendments we are dealing with now deal with qualifications that need to be complied with before a hunt becomes registered.
	I have never been in favour of registration and a great many Members of the Committee were never in favour of registration until their original choice, the status quo, was seen to be absolutely out of order and out of sympathy. So they decided that registration of a hunt to kill—a licence to kill—was the best way forward. In their minds—they may be wrong—they see this as the best way of continuing the practice in which they believe and which they have enjoyed. So far as I am concerned, registration is not even a second best; it is a licence to kill and to continue hunting. If one subscribes to the qualifications and upholds them, one is allowed to continue hunting as one has in the past. I have said before that I am against that. If the amendment is pressed to a vote, I shall urge anyone who cares to listen that it should be voted down.
	Earlier when I mentioned my co-operative interest I failed to declare that I have a registered financial interest in my relationships with the Co-op.

Baroness Byford: The noble Lord just said quite clearly that if the amendment is agreed to, it would constitute a licence to kill. Will the noble Lord acknowledge that if registration does not occur, more animals will be killed by shooting and other methods? I do not mind that he does not agree with those who want to hunt, but the fact is that more foxes, deer and vermin may well be killed than would have been killed had the registration amendment been agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness: I should like to add to that and ask the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and the Minister two questions. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, stated that,
	"on those estates which favour hare coursing or hunting, rather than shooting, a ban might lead farmers and landowners to pay less attention to encouraging hare numbers. The loss of habitat suitable for hares could have serious consequences for a number of birds and other animals".
	Does the Minister agree with that statement? In addition to the point made by my noble friend Lady Byford, there is the wider dimension of birds and other animals.
	Does the Minister agree that the formula of the adhesive agent for round-up was changed because of research not by the Government but by the coursers? That research showed that it was the adhesive agent of round-up that was causing damage to hares and other wildlife and, because of the coursers' actions, the formula was changed for the benefit of all wildlife.

Lord Whitty: I do not really intend to engage in a repeat Second Reading debate, as many have today. I shall try to address the amendment. That is important, because it is a linchpin amendment. As a result of last week's decisions, we are in a situation where we have changed the Bill and moved to something like a registration system, with all the qualifications. The amendment and the subsequent amendments that hang on it would change to something entirely different.
	The amendment and the subsequent groups—it goes right through to Amendment No. 57—purport to be the Alun Michael Bill, but are nothing like that Bill. The formal structure of registrar and tribunal is put back, but a lot of changes have been made to the original provisions. They are presented as improvements and clarifications, but they undermine the key intentions of those clauses in the Bill.
	After some wide-ranging discussion, I was grateful in a sense to my noble friend Lady Mallalieu for taking us back to what the provisions are. In so doing, however, she betrayed the motivation of everyone who supports the amendments; namely, that they disagree with what Alun Michael presented in the original Bill. Therefore, they have tried to take it further, to dilute, weaken and reverse, while staying broadly speaking within a structure that the original Bill presented.

Lord Eden of Winton: Were the original Alun Michael Bill now before the Committee, would the Minister have set his face against considering any single amendment to that Bill?

Lord Whitty: That is a hypothetical question. Indeed, the original Bill could have been dealt with on a rather more rational basis than that on which we have dealt with the Bill that we actually got. It is rare that this House seeks to destroy Bills that it receives from the House of Commons; it normally seeks to amend and revise them. I hope that that might have been the case with the original Bill as compared with the Bill that we received. Nevertheless, Members of the Committee have to recognise that this is a very unusual method of behaviour by your Lordships.

Baroness Byford: I would have said that the very unusual behaviour was actually in the Commons, not in this House. A government Bill presented to the Commons was totally changed at Third Reading.

Lord Whitty: Unlike the noble Baroness, I refrain from commenting on procedures in another place. We have to deal, as we always do, with the Bills that we get from another place. We may not like them, but we normally deal with them within the framework in which they are presented. It is quite frequent that Bills change between their original introduction in another place and their final arrival here. I make no comment on that. What we have to deal with in this House is what we receive from the House of Commons.

The Earl of Onslow: Can the Minister give any example in the past 15 years of a Bill which has gone into the House of Commons stating one thing and come out stating something completely and utterly different? I cannot remember any. He is obviously cleverer and better informed than I am, so perhaps he will be able to tell me.

Lord Whitty: Many Bills change their nature as they pass through the House of Commons. The noble Earl's presumption is wrong. The Bill that we received from the House of Commons is not dramatically different from the original Bill.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Whitty: One of the reasons why noble Lords are not prepared to work from the original Bill, as they are purporting to do, is that they recognise that had the original Bill been before this Chamber, all the pro-hunting elements would have opposed it almost as strongly as they are opposing the Bill which is before us now.

A Noble Lord: And they know it.

Lord Whitty: And they know it. They know that had that Bill stood, there would have been drastic changes to the way in which hunting is carried out in this country. They would have resisted it as fiercely as they are resisting the Bill before us now.
	Let us not have any hypocrisy. We are not attempting by way of the amendment to go back to the original Alun Michael Bill, but moving substantially away from it.
	The utility test would be broadened to allow hunting with dogs for purposes that can hardly be called necessary. That is the original form of the utility test, not the one amended in Committee. Whereas the original Bill required the quarry species to cause serious damage if hunting were to be considered, the test would now be passed if a deer—the hunting of which would be banned in any case by the original Bill—ate a single leaf of any crop. That is a ludicrous extension of the test.
	The revised utility test would also permit hunting for the purposes of population management and sustainable development. It is hard to see how either of those purposes could be achieved by hunting with dogs. Both can certainly be achieved by other means, without any need to inflict the suffering caused by chasing and killing wild animals with dogs.
	The second test, the cruelty test, is also weakened by effectively reversing the burden of proof. The presumption would be in favour of allowing hunting. That underlies all the amendments which stem from that. That presumption is explicit in the changes to the way in which the registrar and the tribunal would assess applications. That is a reversal of the original government Bill.
	That the proposers of the amendments are not serious about the two tests is also evidenced by the amendments which would allow hunting from an area. That would mean that hunting which had passed the test in one place would be allowed without any subjection to it in an entirely different part of the country and for an entirely different species. Again, that broadens, and in a sense drives a coach and horses through, the concept of the original Bill.

Lord King of Bridgwater: Is that not precisely what the Minister agreed to consider sympathetically in responding to the amendment of noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours?

Lord Whitty: No. I do not think that "sympathetically" was a word I used to my noble friend. I said that I would be slightly more benign about it because it respected the structure of the Bill which we received from the House of Commons. I did not say that I was in favour of that amendment. In any case, that amendment, if agreed by both Houses, would have resulted in hunting being allowed in a very specific situation. One would be allowed to hunt in Lakeland, but that would not mean that one could take that licence to hunt and go and do so in Surrey. However, the amendments before us provide exactly that facility; in other words, if one obtains a licence in one part of the country to hunt deer, one can obtain a licence in another part of the country to hunt foxes or vice versa. That was never the intention of the original Bill or of anybody who supports any sensible system of registration.
	Other amendments would make changes to the openness of the registered hunting system by limiting the powers of inspectors and removing public access to the register. Therefore, noble Lords opposite and other noble Lords who support the amendments are not even in favour of transparency so that the public can examine the system. Indeed, if we go further down the list to amendments that we would reach somewhat later this evening—if we reach them—we find amendments to Schedules 2 and 3. There, the same group of noble Lords who have tabled amendments effectively propose to continue all the ancient and outmoded privileges that hunting enjoys; for example—my noble friend Lord Graham alluded to this last week—the right to trespass in search of game and to inflict cruelty on captive animals which are deliberately released to be hunted. The amendments would delete the exemptions in that respect.
	The amendments propose a completely different tone, content, mechanism, process and outcome from that envisaged by the Bill the Government first put before the House of Commons. Let us not kid each other. We are now dealing with amendments which retain a little of the form of the original Alun Michael Bill but virtually none of the content and which, effectively, are designed to allow hunting to continue more or less in its current form. Frankly, the overall effect of this Bill would also make the job of the tribunals and the new form of enforceability fairly impossible.
	Of course, Members of the Committee are entitled to take that view. It is unusual for them to do so in such a revolutionary way in respect of a Bill received from the Commons, but they can take that view. However, if we pass this amendment—as I said, subsequent amendments follow on from this one and I do not propose to make this speech more than once—we shall be in direct conflict with the lower House and, indeed, with the Government's original intention.
	It is clear that the proposers of these amendments have failed to convince me. It is only my judgment—although I believe it will be shared fairly widely—that they will fail to convince the House of Commons. The House of Commons, by a large majority, went dramatically further in some respects than the original Bill, even though both Bills—the original Bill and the final one—would have gravely restricted hunting. Therefore, if the amendment is passed and if the subsequent amendments build on it, we shall be in a position where this House is in serious and direct conflict with another place.

Earl Peel: I seek clarification from the noble Lord. Can he explain to the House why literally hours and hours were spent by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee discussing all the issues that have been raised in this amendment? Furthermore, those subjects were discussed at length at the Portcullis House hearings. I cannot believe that it was not the original intention of the Minister, Alun Michael, to embrace all these concepts as part of the system that would be considered by the registrar if he did not intend them to be part of the original Bill. Hours and hours were spent on it. Can the noble Lord really tell the Committee that it was never his intention to embrace these notions when the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and those at Portcullis House spent such a long time discussing them? That seems to me completely irrational.

Lord Whitty: The noble Earl has paid tribute to Alun Michael for engaging in this process and it was obviously important that the Government sought as wide a range of opinions as possible. A number of issues were raised. Some were taken on board in relation to the Bill that we eventually produced and some were not. That is part of the normal process of consultation. The fact that many hours were spent on this matter should have made that consideration sharper, but it does not necessarily mean that every point that was raised, even if raised by a majority of consultees, would necessarily appear in the legislation. That was never indicated.
	Therefore, Alun Michael and the Government produced a Bill—the original Bill before the House. It was a Bill that we, as government, believed could work and one which we considered we could recommend to the House of Commons. The House of Commons, both in Committee and on Report, then decided otherwise as, in its opinion, this Bill did not go far enough. However, I repeat that the original Bill would have very severely restricted the kind of hunting that Members who support the amendments now before us wish to preserve by the amendments and by the system that they are proposing. The Alun Michael Bill was very much closer to the Bill which came out of the House of Commons than it was to this Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and others are seeking to amend it.

Lord King of Bridgwater: From what the Minister is saying, I get the impression that he is taking the speech he is making now as an answer not merely to this amendment but, as he implied, to all the other amendments on the Marshalled List. I have tabled amendments which in background and difficulty are not that far away from those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. They address an issue on which I have written to the Minister and which everyone who has studied this matter—the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the Portcullis House inquiry—accepts, and as is set out in letters from Ministers—has to be addressed. I demand the opportunity to be able to debate those amendments from a wildlife point of view.
	The Minister is not a supine Minister whose job is that of post-box for the House of Commons. He does not pretend that. I respect his ability to stand his own ground. That is what his job is. He is a Minister in this House of Lords. We have a duty to do this.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, made this point, which is a very serious point indeed. Jack Straw set up the Burns inquiry because he realised the difficulty of the issues that were being tackled and tried to tackle them in a constructive way. The Government decided that they would pursue that constructive course. It was overthrown by a majority. Because of "leakiness" we know that a letter went from Alun Michael to John Prescott—I have the exact phrase—stating that it would be wrong to,
	"be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty".
	We know what the Government thought was the right way. Real problems will exist if we let the Commons decision on that one vote throw out the whole issue. That would leave major problems for wildlife in this country. It is simply not sufficient for the Minister to waft it away and say, "I have answered all the amendments and that is all I shall say". There are serious issues and I insist that we have the opportunity to debate them.

Lord Whitty: Of all people, the noble Lord will know that the Government cannot comment on leaked memos. Nevertheless, perhaps I may reply to the procedural point he raised. When I said that there are subsequent groups of amendments which hang on this one and to which I do not intend to reply twice or in detail, I did not include going as far as the noble Lord's amendment, which, if I remember rightly, is Amendment No. 94A. I was referring to the immediately subsequent next 10 or so groups of amendments, which all relate to the system which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and his colleagues are attempting to set up.
	All I was indicating, for the benefit of the Committee, was that if noble Lords in their wisdom accepted it, I should not seek to prolong debate on the other amendments. I cannot speak for colleagues but I would not oppose the other amendments because there is a certain logic to them and we would get a coherent Bill out of them even if it was one that I could not accept and I do not believe that the House of Commons would in any way accept. However, that stops after Amendment No. 57, when we get back to amendments which deal with more specific subjects, which include the amendment tabled by the noble Lord.

Lord Palmer: I did not realise how very contentious these amendments were going to be. I have to say that it is depressing how painfully slow progress in Committee has been. I take slight objection to my dear friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, reminding us not to make Second Reading speeches. On such a complex Bill it is very difficult not to verge on making a Second Reading speech.
	My noble friend Lord Moran hit the tip of the iceberg. The dreadful word "utility" is a very serious danger to all field sports. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also hit the nail on the head. Killing is not the issue here. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 28A.

Amendment No. 28A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 28B and 28C, as amendments to Amendment No. 28, not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara: Then we revert to Amendment No. 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft.

Lord Mancroft: We have had a very long debate. There is not a great deal of point in going a whole stage further. I certainly do not wish to answer everyone who took part in the debate. That would be ludicrous at this hour of the night.
	Perhaps I may make two points to the Minister. The amendment may not be perfect—amendments never are. One will always listen to hear whether a word is in the right place. Constructive criticism of any amendment is always welcomed. However, the intention was to return this, not necessarily to the Alun Michael Bill, as we have come to call it, but to the principles. The principles were public, open, consulted upon and, to a certain extent, agreed. That was and is the purpose.
	In responding, the Minister slightly derided us. There is no intention that anyone should apply to hunt on the basis that a deer has eaten one leaf. It is silly to say that. The noble Lord knows full well that that was never our intention. Reversing the burden of proof on the least suffering test is a significant fact, for reasons we have already discussed. I do not want to go over them again, but, as there is no ability to measure suffering, it seems a little harsh to expect thousands of private citizens to do that if the registrar cannot. The noble Lord will have read, as I have, the hours the Standing Committee in another place spent going through that. It is almost impossible at times to see with both sides switching their arguments constantly. The reality is that in reading that and in looking at it, it is almost impossible to do. It seems very harsh that an individual should have to do it.
	I have two other short points. The noble Lord talked about where the word "from" comes in. There is no intention for anyone to get a licence in place A to hunt one species and then to go off and hunt another species in a completely different part of the country. If that is the effect of the amendment, we shall have to look at it and improve upon it. That is not the intention at all, nor is it the intention to dilute or weaken it; it is merely practical because in the course of a hunt one can move from one area to another. It seems sensible to have both areas covered. We are not talking about moving about all over the countryside.
	The Minister talked about transparency regarding the register. There is a very simple reason for that. If he sat on this side of the debate and had been involved in hunting, he would realise that you do not want to have your name and address on a public register in case people come and visit you. I had to have special branch outside my house in London for six weeks because of the threats made against my wife and children. That is not very amusing. I do not want my name on a list. I am sure the noble Lord understands that. That was the purpose in taking off that list. If he looks at the amendment he will know that the kind of people who should be able to see that register are quite welcome to see it. These are reasonable things; these are not massive changes. This is the kind of fine-tuning that this Chamber does all the time.
	The Minister slightly let the cat out of the bag when he went on to the areas of ancient privileges and rights to trespass. No one out hunting has a privilege or a right. It is a privilege to hunt and to be out in the countryside. It is quite right that everyone should behave properly. There is no intention in any of these amendments to go down some awful route that his words implied.
	I make a last comment. There is no intention in this amendment or any that follow on to conflict with the House of Commons. We conflict with the House of Commons when we reach the end if we disagree with them and they disagree with us. We are an awfully long way from that and I hope that we will not reach it. Perhaps we will. But let us climb that mountain when we get to that stage. I was certainly under the impression that the Minister speaks for the Government in this House and not for the other place.
	In saying that, it must be borne in mind that the Secretary of State and the Minister who promoted the Bill have themselves described the Bill that came into this Chamber—the Bill that we are apparently meant to be welcoming with open arms—as "wrecked, unenforceable and unworkable". So these circumstances are strange; they are unique even. I cannot remember a wrecked and unenforceable Bill arriving in this Chamber and noble Lords being expected to deal with it. How else could we do it? This is what we have chosen to do. We believe it is reasonable and justified. I hope the Committee will agree with us on that. I seek to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 28) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 22.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Roper: I beg to move that the House do now resume. We are well past 10 o'clock, which is the normal time for rising. Having looked at the number of groups of amendments still to be considered, I do not believe that further consideration of the Bill is appropriate for us today.

Lord Whitty: I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, may be taking the mood of the House. Nevertheless, the Government would be prepared and have been prepared to continue with this Bill. If we are to move to a vote on this, I need to put some things on record.
	First, the Government have provided for two days in Committee for this Bill—an entirely routine and well-precedented proposal for a Bill that is only 17 clauses long. We also made it plain to the various participants that, should some further time be necessary for the Committee stage, we would be flexible and would consider, among other proposals, referring parts of the Bill to Grand Committee or finding an extra day on a Friday. However, there was no agreement on that flexibility.
	At the beginning of the Committee stage, which we started last week, in appeared that we had two full days to deal with just over 50 groups of amendments, which is not an unreasonable task for this House. Indeed, this week that has been performed on Bills in one day. For this Bill, we took an hour per group last Tuesday and longer today—nearly an hour and a half before dinner and more than an hour and a half per group after dinner. We have had 12 hours of debate and, to date, we have dealt with only five groups of amendments. That is pretty unprecedented. Even in the days when we were dealing with huge constitutional issues such as the reform of this House, devolution for Scotland and the human rights Bill, we never took that long over single amendments to a Bill.
	The Government have been criticised for their sense of priorities in bringing this measure forward. Your Lordships must consider their sense of priorities in relation to the time that they have taken in this House. At the present rate of progress—we still have more than 40 groups left—we calculate that it would take a further seven days in Committee of the whole House to complete the Committee stage. That is clearly impossible unless it had been agreed that some of the Bill could be taken in Grand Committee.
	That is the situation that the House finds itself in and I must tell the Committee that I am advised that it is now impossible to complete the Committee stage this Session, if the resumption of the House is agreed now.

Lord Chalfont: I support the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Roper. I understand all the arguments about the sense of priorities and everything else, but the House did agree some time in 2002 that on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, we should stop work at 10 o'clock in the evening. It is now well past that time. We have reached Amendment No. 28 on a list that approaches 100 amendments. I believe that even those who find this debate absolutely fascinating have probably had about enough for today. I therefore support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Roper.

Lord Carter: The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is quite wrong. We agreed that we would normally finish at 10 o'clock. This Bill has not been normal: it has been abnormal in my 17 years' experience in this House. In my five years as Chief Whip, we never spent so long on groups of amendments. Those who wished to kill the Bill in this House have succeeded.

Lord King of Bridgwater: Will the Minister answer two questions? Am I correct in believing that, when the Commons debated the Bill, it did so under a timetable Motion, so the Government decided how much time was needed to debate the Bill? Under that timetable Motion, how much time was allowed for the Committee stage?
	The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right—for the wrong reason, if I may say so in the kindest way. It is an exceptional Bill. It was never discussed in Committee. There have been complaints about the time that the Committee stage has taken, but the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has already pointed out the glaring problem that arises from the last-minute amendments that were passed on Report in another place and completely changed the character of the Bill.
	For presentational reasons, the Minister may wish to say that a tremendous parliamentary outrage has been committed by the House. I must say in the kindest way and with the greatest respect that, given the good nature and good sense of noble Lords in all parts of the House, nobody will believe him. The argument that it is not an extremely difficult Bill cannot be sustained. It is entitled to more time. I suspect that the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms knows how long was spent in Committee in the Commons, under the timetable Motion. If he gave us that figure, it would help the House to know whether it was being treated fairly or unfairly.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In answer to the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, I must say that, in my experience as a Government Whip, the way in which people have abused the normal practices of the House with regard to the time taken to speak to amendments has been unprecedented. Noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite may not have seen the number of heads behind them that nodded when I complained about what could even have been interpreted as the deliberate lengthening of speeches.
	I am advised that in another place, the timetable was agreed. I am also aware, as, I am sure, is the noble Lord, that, in another place, the Bill was debated in Committee off the Floor of the House. That option was available to your Lordships and was not accepted.

Lord King of Bridgwater: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Will she answer the question that I asked? How many hours were allocated under the timetable Motion?

Lord Grocott: I do not have that figure to hand. Of course, we can ensure that the noble Lord obtains the figure. It might be helpful if a Written Question were put down on the matter. There is a misapprehension in the House that, somehow or other, less time is spent on the consideration of Bills in the other place. That is not the case—I say that emphatically—for the simple reason, as the noble Lord knows as well as I do, that Bills are considered in Committee. They are considered at greater length and, inevitably, in considerably greater detail than in this House. That is the fact. Should anyone wish to verify that fact, the simple procedure of asking a Question for Written Answer is available. The facts can be demonstrated in respect of virtually every Bill that has gone through the House this Session.

Baroness Byford: I must press the noble Lord. My understanding is that there were 27 sittings in Committee in another place, although I could be wrong by one or two. We on these Benches offered through the usual channels a timetable that would have included a third day in Committee and still allowed the Bill to be completed in this Session. That was not taken up.

Lord King of Bridgwater: Do I take it that those were two-and-a-half hour sessions and that there were 27 sessions? I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I did not have the information myself. With the greatest of respect to the Captain of the Gentleman-At-Arms, he made a brave point. But the idea that we should have such a minimal amount of time in comparison to the time spent in the Commons, does not stack up.

Lord Mancroft: The timetable problem is not a new problem. At the request of the Captain of the Gentleman-at-Arms, I met him on two occasions some two or three weeks ago. He was always aware, as were the Whips of all the usual channels—that is, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and my noble friend Lord Cope—that we on the Back Benches involved had always said that we thought that this Bill would take three and possibly even four days in Committee. That was several weeks ago. We always said that this was going to happen.
	The reality also is that not only did the Bill spend 27 sittings in Committee in the House of Commons, but, as my noble friend Lord Jopling reminded the House at Second Reading, there was also 70 days between Committee and Report in the House of Commons. I suspect that the purpose of the Minister's comments at the start of the Motion for this short debate was simple: it was to lay the blame for the death of this Bill at the door of this House. That is perfectly clear and the facts are perfectly clear. The whole world knows it. The reason that the Bill is where it is tonight is because the Government have chosen to delay their own wrecked Bill.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Can my noble friend Lord Whitty confirm that a third day and possibly a fourth day involving two Fridays was offered through the usual channels for the Bill? That certainly would have enabled the Bill to complete Committee stage had it moved at a normal rate. Can the Minister also say on how many previous occasions the mover of an amendment has spoken for 28 minutes? It is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, but to say that a 28-minute speech when moving an amendment is normal or is not an abuse of the procedures of the House strikes me as extraordinary. That is not to mention what happened at the beginning of the day when we debated for an hour and four minutes an amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who was moving it, admitted half way through had no place in the Bill at all. Speaking for myself, I am happy to put on the record that if it is necessary to go through the night tonight to consider the Bill, I should be happy to do so. I certainly oppose the Motion for the adjournment.

Earl Ferrers: It is always very easy to get worked up about these matters. It has always been perfectly clear that this Bill would be highly contentious. Therefore, it was understandable that there should be a clamour for a reasonable amount of time for these matters to be considered. I have found these debates fascinating, not only because one person would say, "I approve of hunting" and another would say, "I do not approve of hunting", but the way in which the Bill was considered with all the bits and pieces drawn out of it to demonstrate that it was unworkable.
	From time to time, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has fallen into the trap—it is always fun to hear him talking when he addresses the House—of saying that noble Lords opposite have done such and such. But it is not noble Lords opposite. The previous vote shows that 106 people were in favour of the amendment and 22 were against. On looking back at the amendments voted on last week, if all the hereditary Peers' votes were removed—which I remind Members of the Committee were the only elected Members of this House; all the others were appointed—and if all the Conservative Peers' votes were removed, the Government would still have lost. Therefore, it is not a question of addressing the Conservative Benches and saying that we are trying to filibuster or something like that. As a whole, the Committee has come to this conclusion. The fact is that in this House, the Government do not have the support of their own Back Benches.

Lord Roper: I have heard the remarks made from many parts of the Committee, but I beg leave to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the House do now resume?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 34.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.